Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. John Ernest Silkin, esquire, Member for Lewisham, Deptford, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On 12 March 1987 the total numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport, Gwent and Wales were 9,524, 26,782 and 166,000 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate than many thousands have been out of work for two years or more—approximately 1,400 in Newport, East? Does

the right hon. Gentleman recognise that people are being bullied off the register, that schemes are introduced which mean no real jobs, and that there have been 19 changes in the method of compiling the statistics? Is it not time that a stop was put to that fiddling and that the Government introduced suitable economic policies that will produce real jobs for our people?

Mr. Edwards: The rate of long-term unemployment has been falling more rapidly in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman talks about real jobs. I am sure that he will have welcomed the announcement by Plessey on 15 April that it will expand its operations in Newport to create 137 jobs, the announcement by LRC Products today that it will create 110 jobs in Llanelli, and other announcements this April. Diversified Products announced 125 jobs in Gorseinon, Pulse Computers 30 jobs in Newport, Sebastian International 127 jobs at Bridgend, Graphaprint 100 jobs in Deeside, Action Express Packaging 30 jobs in Kenfig Hill, Brother Industries 191 jobs in Wrexham, Microloom 111 jobs in Swansea, and Anglo Swedish Homes 59 jobs in Port Talbot. If that is fiddling the figures, I am delighted to announce them to the House as real jobs.

Sir Anthony Meyer: One feels a certain sympathy for the Labour party in its plight, but is there not something embarrassing about its attempt to extract bad capital from the crop of consistently good news that now comes every day from Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree. We have seen the headline total down by 18,200 over the year and we have seen seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales fall for 10 consecutive months and for 11 out of the past 12 months. That is good news. I am surprised that it causes misery on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what are the latest developments in the worst unemployment black spot in Wales, the Teifi valley?

Mr. Edwards: In the Teifi valley, as in every other travel-to-work area in Wales, unemployment has fallen over the past 12 months. I am confident that the


unemployment figures will continue to improve. I say that because of the confidence being expressed by business and industry generally in Wales.

Mr. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of 200 jobs by Brother Industries in Wrexham represents just the latest in a staggering record of achievements in reducing unemployment over the past six months? Will my right hon. Friend encourage further industries to move to that corner of north-east Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The truth is that that corner of north-east Wales is proving to be one of the most attractive industrial locations in the whole of Britain. It has attracted a considerable amount of overseas investment. The number of jobs there has grown substantially during our term in office. I am particularly struck by the number of projects that are being negotiated currently there and elsewhere in Wales.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that, of course, we welcome all new job announcements in Wales, whether from multinational companies, from within Wales or from the public sector? Our concern is the context in which those announcements are made. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that he has to set the job gains against the 150,000 jobs that have been destroyed since he took office as Secretary of State for Wales? That is what his successor as the candidate in the county of Pembrokeshire will be answerable for to the electorate now that the right hon. Gentleman is to retire.

Mr. Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, unlike the spokesman for the Labour party, has welcomed the good news. Of course we have suffered from high levels of unemployment in Wales. Indeed, Wales has suffered from the decline of the old basic industries for generations. However, I believe that we have now come to the end of that process and have a strengthening and broadening Welsh economy. I should have thought that both sides of the House would welcome the series of consistently good figures that have been emerging for at least a year in Wales.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that, historically, there has always been high unemployment in the valleys of Wales? Is it not also a fact that no Government have done more to produce jobs and small businesses in Wales than have this Conservative Government?

Mr. Edwards: All I can say—it is an absolute fact—is that unemployment has fallen more rapidly and for a longer period in Wales than in any other region of the United Kingdom and that the relative position of Wales in the unemployment tables has improved markedly during the past 12 months. I am confident that that process will continue.

"Housing for Senior Management"

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in response to his Department's circular 30/86 entitled "Housing for Senior Management."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): Forty four local authorities responded to the circular, and 14 other organisations and individuals made representations.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the fact that the circular is to be inflicted on the people of Wales, but not on the people of England, will the Under-Secretary of State accept that it will undermine the entire planning process? Does he further accept that an overwhelming body of people in Wales are against the circular, and will he arrange to withdraw it as soon as he can?

Mr. Robinson: The answer to the last question is no. I stress that the circular is concerned only with sites for individually designed single, new houses or low-density groups of houses in attractive locations commanding the privacy and space that executives in business and industry expect, and can often find elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that that could in any way undermine planning policies in Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that that will not mean the abandonment of sound planning principles, but is merely an additional consideration that planning authorities should have in mind in their aim of creating new jobs in the Principality?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Delyn Enterprise Zone

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total number of new jobs created in the Delyn enterprise zone since it came into operation on 21 July 1983.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between 21 July 1983 and 30 March 1987 a total of 1,155 new jobs have been created in the Delyn enterprise zone.

Mr. Raffan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging figure. Does he agree that the continued dramatic success of the Delyn enterprise zone, which has been largely responsible for the 13 per cent. drop in Delyn's unemployment figures during the past year, would be threatened by the return to power of the Labour party, which has shown nothing but outright hostility to the concept of enterprise zones?

Mr. Edwards: I agree entirely. It is notable that 85 per cent. of the 2,000 jobs in the zone are in manufacturing and that 55 per cent. are full-time jobs for males. It is equally encouraging to see the success of the neighbouring green field business park, which has attracted companies such as Breger and Gibson, Huurral and Christie Tyler.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total square footage of factories built by the Welsh Development Agency since May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The WDA has completed more than 9·7 million sq ft of factory floor space since May 1979.

Mr. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend say what the average square footage of factory space produced by the agency has been since the present Government came into power, and how that compares with the figure under the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Edwards: Between January 1976 and March 1979 the agency completed 1·5 million sq ft—an average of 0·5 million sq ft per year. Under this Government there has


been an average of 1·2 million sq ft per year, which is more than double the rate under the previous Labour Government. However, perhaps even more important has been the record level at which those factories have been occupied. The allocation rate is currently running at an all-time high.

Mr. Foot: We greatly welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to support for the Welsh Development Agency. We only wish that he had given that enthusiastic support from the beginning. What will be the real expansion in the money that is to be allocated to the Welsh Development Agency? The right hon. Gentleman must know that there are areas, such as mine, where we still have about 20 per cent. unemployment and are fighting as hard as we can against it. We need a considerable increase in the factory programme to enable us to attract more new industries into our areas, and I hope that we will get it from the right hon. Gentleman's successor.

Mr. Edwards: We have a far bigger factory programme than that of the previous Administration, so I do not need lectures on that from the right hon. Gentleman. The agency's total budget for 1987–88 is £86·5 million, and it is planning on the basis of £93 million gross being available for factory development over the next three financial years. It is remarkable that the agency allocated 2 million sq ft of factory space in the past financial year and 566,000 sq ft in the first three months of this year. Therefore, the pace of allocation is accelerating.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State look at the situation in Gwynedd in detail and observe that the WDA's three-year programme has virtually no investment programmes in factories, other than at Llandudno junction, although in places such as Holyhead and the Pwllheli area unemployment is between 20 and 25 per cent.? When will the WDA deliver the goods to those areas?

Mr. Edwards: I shall certainly look at those factors with the WDA, but by far the biggest contribution that has been or could be made to the economy of that area is the present road construction programme—the dualling of the A55 across north Wales and the work on the Conway crossing. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the improvement of those road links to the rest of Britain will make the biggest possible contribution to creating jobs in his area.

Mr. Barry Jones: The WDA has done well for Wales, and I remind the House that a Labour Government created it. The Secretary of State puts a complacent gloss on the record, bearing in mind that under his stewardship unemployment has doubled since 1979. Has he forgotten his 6,473 jobless constituents? Not for them the rich pickings of the City. The right hon. Gentleman should present his WDA plans to restore his constituents to work. Does he know that more than 4,000 of my constituents are jobless and that recent job losses announced at the Modo factory are a serious blow? Has the WDA any plans to intervene to help my shocked constituents? The work of the agency in Clwyd would be much easier if the Government would give the £750 million loan for the airbus. Why has there been no statement on that?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the loss of 50 or 60 jobs at Modo, but not to the 100 jobs created, for example, by Graphoprint on Deeside, which

was the subject of my recent announcement, or the 100 jobs created at DRG Plastics, which were announced in March. Within one mile of DRG's new factory there are now nine foreign-owned companies employing about 1,400 people. In my constituency I have created an enterprise zone which already, in the short period of its history, has created more than 500 jobs. I greatly welcome the announcement made only this weekend of a major new ferry service operating from Pembroke dock to Ireland.

Privatisation

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of Her Majesty's Government's privatisation policy on the economy of Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Privatisation, which is an essential part of the Government's policy of stimulating enterprise, has already proved of considerable benefit to the people of Wales.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Secretary of State think it ethical or desirable that Cabinet Ministers who make important decisions on privatisation should be allowed to buy shares in privatisation issues, as he did in British Telecom? What is his view of those of his colleagues who made multiple share applications?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has sadly wrecked his career by his action, but he should be remembered as well for his outstanding contribution to Ynys Môn as a constituency Member of Parliament. Like all Cabinet Ministers, all my investments are made without reference to me and at the complete discretion of my investment advisers.

Mr. Grist: If I may use a slightly different meaning of the word "privatisation", does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some Conservative Ministers are most disappointed that this has not gone further in Wales, in particular in freeing workers in local authorities and the National Health Service? Can we look for further action on this in the next Conservative Government?

Mr. Edwards: The answer to the final part of my hon. Friend's question is that he can look to further action. Indeed, we are already taking vigorous action in the Health Service. I have had recent discussions with the chairmen of a number of health authorities in Wales about carrying this action forward. I am glad to say that the health authority covering my hon. Friend's constituency is taking real and positive steps.

Mr. Barry Jones: If privatisation of the public services in Wales were ever to take place it would lead to the loss of at least 3,000 jobs in the very early years in which it was implemented. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's record since 1979 in Wales a ghastly one? Manufacturing investment is down, regional grants are down, transport jobs are down, mining jobs are down by 23,000 and metals and chemicals are down by 45 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his complacent policies have lost us 36 per cent. of our manufacturing jobs? To lose further jobs through privatisation would make the problems far worse. For these betrayals, the right hon. Gentleman should not be given a peerage to go back to the City, he should be sacked.

Mr. Edwards: I have seldom heard such nonsense. The truth of the matter is that every privatisation has greatly


improved the efficiency of the organisation. In Wales, for example, we have benefited from Amersham International, Associated British Ports and Allied Wire and Steel. I hope that in due course, the steel industry will return to the freedom of the private sector. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that he would like to see the steel industry return to the over-manned, uncompetitive condition in which we inherited it from the Labour party. I am glad to say that today it is among the most competitive steel industries in Europe and that its future is assured by that fact.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatisation by local authorities and health authorities has led not only to lower rates, which must be good for business and for jobs, but to better services, because money saved can be reallocated to areas of greatest need?

Mr. Edwards: That is true. If we get improved efficiency, we are able to provide better services for the same outlay. It seems quite incredible that spokesmen from the Labour party should argue against efficiency in the public services, yet that seems to be the case that they are to present to the people of Britain and of Wales.

Patients (Waiting Lists)

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has made into the cost and effectiveness of appointments and waiting times for patients attending clinics at National Health Service hospitals in Wales.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Information is not regularly collected centrally about cancellations of either in-patient or out-patient appointments. In surveys conducted in 1985 it was estimated that about 2 per cent. of out-patient clinics were cancelled by hospitals and that about 15 per cent. of new out-patients and 19 per cent. of follow-up outpatients did not attend for their appointments. The Welsh Office's waiting list team will be examining the impact of cancelled appointments on waiting lists during the course of its work over the next year.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the survey in south Glamorgan, which estimates that 1,000 patients a week do not turn up, that this is costing the University hospital of Wales £2 million a year, that having everyone ordered to turn up for 10 o'clock in the morning causes a loss of money and ill will among both medical staff and patients, and that something ought to be done about it?

Mr. Robinson: I realise the problems that such cancellations cause and the difficulty for those waiting for appointments. Responsibility for running an efficient appointments system rests with the district health authorities. As long ago as 1985 the Welsh Office asked authorities to validate their waiting lists. This should reduce non-attendance by eliminating those who no longer require treatment. As part of its work of disseminating good practice, the Department's waiting list team will be investigating further the procedures for health authorities in this regard.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister agree that it is bad and inefficient when all the out-patients are sent for at one time, either at 10 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon? Will he ensure that his Department tells

district health authorities that appointments should be staggered? That is one of the reasons why there are so many defaulters.

Mr. Robinson: Once again, it is the responsibility of each health authority to decide how it runs its appointments system. That is precisely why we embarked on the validation exercise and why we are giving the sort of advice to health authorities that we are at present.

Mr. Harvey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 9 per cent. increase for nurses will do a great deal to improve morale in the Health Service? Does he also agree that it is highly desirable that so much of the funding for that should come not from the area health authorities but from central Government?

Mr. Robinson: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. It is perhaps worth recording that under the previous Labour Government the value of nurses' salaries actually fell by 21 per cent., whereas with this pay award the overall increase in nurses' pay, after allowing for inflation, is 30 per cent.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it not be wiser for the Government to tackle the basic problems relating to ill health in Wales—unemployment, substandard housing, inadequate nutrition and a poor environment? Surely such measures would be more beneficial than pressing our general practitioners to distribute glossy Government propaganda.

Mr. Robinson: The one thing that the hon. Gentleman absolutely hates is the truth. The truth is that we have increased total cash resources available to health authorities in Wales in the current year by 7·9 per cent. That is why revenue provision for health authorities has increased by 33 per cent. in real terms since 1979; that is why we have invested £495 million in the capital estate of the Health Service in Wales; that is why the numbers of staff are up by 13·5 per cent. since 1979; and that is why tens of thousands more patients are being cared for in Wales today than was possible in 1979.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman gave the House particulars about nurses' salaries under the previous Labour Government, but will he tell us the exact dates with which he makes the comparison, because, if he makes an investigation, he will find that, unfortunately, he has been supplied with misleading figures.

Mr. Robinson: The figures given were for 1974 to 1979, and they were given in the House recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I should like to make a plea on behalf of my constituents and the people of mid-Wales. Will the Minister consider giving extra financial aid to the East Dyfed health authority to enable it to build the urgently needed second phase at Bronglais hospital, Aberystwyth?

Mr. Robinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have given increases to the East Dyfed health authority for its current expenditure—nearly 6 per cent. this year—and for its capital programme. Indeed, at this moment, at a cost of £24 million, we are building a brand new hospital in Llanelli. The local health authority has a continuing capital programme and has many developments and plans within that programme.

Leasehold Property

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many domestic leaseholders in Wales he expects to be affected by the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Specific statistical information in the form requested is not available. On 30 June 1986 I informed the hon. Gentleman that legislation would be introduced
which would extend to all domestic leaseholders a right to challenge the coverage and premiums for the insurance of their properties proposed by owners of freeholds."—[Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 684.]
On Second Reading of the Bill I informed the House that Government amendments would be tabled to meet that commitment. I am pleased to inform the House that that has been done and that I expect to move them in Standing Committee tomorrow.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister acknowledge that on 30 June he implied a lot more when he answered questions in the House? Will he confirm that the legislation as it now exists with the amendments that he is now proposing will neither extend to leaseholders the right to choose their own insurance company nor give them the right to purchase their freeholds at a precise and predetermined level? Those are the things that the Minister promised the House. How can he justify that betrayal of his own constituents, many of whom are faced with the predations of companies such as Castle Beg and Banana Bliss, and of the promises that he gave in this Chamber?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read Hansard, and I would have had a lot more sympathy with him had he attended the Second Reading debate in question. I have already quoted what I said on 30 June, and I shall do so again. I said:
which would extend to all domestic leaseholders a right to challenge the coverage and premiums for the insurance of their properties proposed by owners of freeholds"—[Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 684.]
That is precisely what the clauses that have been tabled do. The amendments that we have tabled give leaseholders three important new rights—the right to know specific details about the insurance of their homes, the right to challenge the terms of such insurance, and the right to ask the court to vary leases that contain defective provisions in relation to insurance.
The hon. Gentleman's other point was not part of the assurances that I gave the House on 30 June.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Minister still misses the point. Labour Members support the legislation as far as it goes, but we also support my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in his understanding that this legislation would extend to all domestic leaseholders. If the Minister cannot now fulfil the promise that he made, he should not have made it in the first place.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. It does extend to all domestic leaseholders. The matters that are now being raised are really ones for the Committee stage of the Bill. That Committee stage is being dealt with in a bipartisan manner and the discussion is constructive on both sides. I find it strange that the kind of rancour that is now coming from the Opposition Benches is in no way manifesting itself in the work of the Committee.

Schools (Ministerial Visits)

Mr. Barry: Jones asked the Secretary of State for Wales to how many (a) state schools and (b) private schools he has paid official visits this year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I have visited four local education authority maintained schools and one Roman Catholic voluntary aided school so far this year. I have not visited any independent schools.

Mr. Jones: Is it not the case that if the money spent by Welsh Office Ministers on sponsoring pupils in private schools was spent on the state sector it would mean at least £5 per child in secondary education? Is it not also true that, according to the latest polls, parents believe that, under this Government, standards have fallen largely because the state sector is still underfunded, even in an election year? Her Majesty's Inspectorate points to an alarming situation where parent-teacher associations are now bailing out our schools throughout the length and breadth of Wales. Is it not a fact that since 1979 Welsh Office Ministers from public schools have neglected our state schools and favoured their own?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman's first point is quite wrong. I have already told him in the House that, even if we were not to spend on the assisted places scheme, it would add only 30p to the £1,400 spent per child in the maintained sector. The amount spent is only 0·126 per cent. of total spending on the maintained sector. As for falling standards, I deny that absolutely. We have taken steps to improve education in Wales, and will continue to do so. As for spending, the hon. Gentleman must know that, while spending has remained roughly constant, pupil numbers are now 14·5 per cent. down on what they were in 1977–78, whereas the number of teachers has declined by only 7 per cent. We are spending more per pupil than was spent under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to find more resources for state schools in the Principality the most effective way is to remove surplus places at a faster rate? I instance the example of Clwyd, where at present 22,300 surplus places in the primary and secondary sectors are costing £3·5 million a year just to keep empty. Why do Labour Members not get off their backsides and support the Government in trying to reach their target of removing two fifths of those surplus places so that we can spend the money on where it is most needed—in the hard-pressed urban primary and secondary schools?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) could begin by supporting his education spokesman, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who is encouraging teachers not to take industrial action. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside should give his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North his support. However, with regard to surplus places, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) is absolutely right. There are about 150,000 surplus places in Wales and I know of some schools—in Clwyd, for example—where there are more surplus places than pupils at individual schools. I am also glad to say that a number of local education authorities are at various stages in the consideration of plans for rationalising school provision, particularly in the face of the declining secondary pupil numbers.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: On his school visits, has the Minister visited any of the smaller comprehensive schools in western and mid-Wales to see the problems that they face in trying to provide for a broad-based bilingual curriculum with very scare resources?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the matter when he described the schools as "smaller comprehensive schools". Obviously, the smaller the school, the more difficult it is to provide a broad-based curriculum, particularly at secondary level. That is why so many local education authorities are considering sixth-form and tertiary colleges and other such reorgansiations.

General Certificate of Secondary Education

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the adequacy of resources for the general certificate of secondary education examinations.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I have had representations from about 35 individuals and organisations.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Are not the resources available for the examination, whose introduction was very warmly supported by the main teachers' unions, perfectly adequate provided that the teachers' unions, which have now received a very large pay award, are prepared to show the very minimum of co-operation to make the new scheme work, rather than seeking to wreck the whole education system in pursuit of wage claims?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The teachers' unions were foremost in calling for a single examination at 16. Massive preparations followed the decision taken by the Government in 1984. Alas, the training that we provided was disrupted and boycotted during the industrial action last year. I note that the NAS/UWT is still highly critical of the GCSE, for which it called. Additional resources have been made available. Current education spending has been increased by 11 per cent. for Wales this year under the rate support grant settlement. We have given special assistance over three years of £2·4 million, and of £1 million additionally for INSET training over a period of two years. I am glad to say that local education authorities in Wales have increased their capitation allowances to provide additional funds for the GCSE.

Mr. Barry Jones: For the examination to go well the teachers' morale must be restored, because the Government have destroyed that morale. Is it not the case that the Government have destroyed the teachers' free negotiating machinery? Has not the Secretary of State for Education and Science chosen to take greater powers over teachers than any Minister in peacetime, with the Secretary of State for Wales embarrassingly on his coat-tails?

Mr. Roberts: Is it not the fact that the Government had to take that action and Parliament had to pass the relevant Act because of the inability of the unions to come to an agreement? With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about destroying morale, I am sure that many workers in the country would like to have a 16·4 per cent. increase imposed upon them, over 18 months.

Water Rates

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the level of water rates in the Welsh water authority area.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend has received eight written representations about the level of water charges in the Welsh water authority area.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that an increase in water rates that is double the rate of inflation is unacceptable to Welsh water ratepayers, and will he tell the House why Mr. Bernard Doyle, the chief executive of the Welsh water authority, resigned? Do the Government intend to go ahead with the privatisation of the water industry in Wales?

Mr. Robinson: I am satisfied that the increase in charges was the minimum necessary to meet higher costs due to inflation and to enable the board to continue to invest in improving the quality of services, such as water supply and sewerage, and to improve the environment, including coastal waters. The increase for the Welsh water authority is within the band of increases for all water authorities in England and Wales.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the chief executive of the Welsh water authority is not a matter for me, but I understand that he resigned because of a dispute about his contract and that it has nothing to do with other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Labour Statistics

Mr. Silvester: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons are employed by the Duchy in the north-west region.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Nineteen, Sir.

Mr. Silvester: Is my right hon. Friend also pleased that there has been a continuous fall in unemployment in the north-west during the past eight months in respect of both male and female unemployment, and that the percentage of unemployment is low compared with the previous period?

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed, and that contrasts starkly with the predictions made not that long ago by Labour party spokesmen to the effect that unemployment would rise inexorably and would exceed 5 million by the time of the next general election. As usual, another of their alarm scares and smears has been shown to be as untrue as they always have been.

Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding the welcome increase in employment prospects for people in the north-west, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that there is a major problem of unemployment in the region and that only when the Government recognise the need to put money into construction projects, such as the creation of improved housing and the building of something like the Mersey barrage, will many of the unemployed in that important sector find work?

Mr. Tebbit: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the major problem of unemployment that still exists


in the region, but it would be foolish to return to the policies that brought about that structural imbalance in the region—high public spending, state intervention and things of that sort. Of course there is a need for infrastructure spending, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly have something to say on our roads programme. Of course it has been right to help Liverpool by giving it the amount of urban aid grant that we have. Of course it is right to improve the water supply in the north-west. But in the long term the salvation of the north-west will be the private sector of enterprise creating firms which produce goods that people wish to buy.

Ministerial Meetings

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many official meetings he has had in the last month.

Mr. Tebbit: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: But what—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we have yet had that answer.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was not here to ask his Question No. 19; he must be out somewhere. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question — this is one fewer than the previous answer—is 18.

Mr. Winnick: What amount of time can the right hon. Gentleman devote to meetings when he seems to be so busy intimidating and bullying the broadcasting authorities? Is it not true that a recent independent report that examined the BBC coverage of the American raids on Libya shows that there was no justification for the criticism levelled by the right hon. Gentleman? Is it too much to expect him to apologise?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining that my productivity, like the productivity of most people in industry, is expanding greatly and that I work too hard. I have to tell him that I shall continue to behave in that way. As for his complaints about the BBC, my independent report on the BBC's coverage of the Libyan incident came to a very different conclusion. That conclusion was accepted by most independent observers. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me about the fact that the BBC recently confessed that it was entirely wrong to omit from one of its news broadcasts an item of news favourable to the Government. The director general was kind enough to say that he was wrong. I accept that he was wrong and I hope that the BBC will improve its journalistic standards.

Sir Alex Fletcher: May I ask my right hon. Friend how many meetings he has had in the last month with the chairman of the party and whether agreement has been reached between both offices about the advice that should be given to the Prime Minister about the date of the next election?

Mr. Tebbit: The two of us have had a number of meetings, but fortunately I do not have to answer at the Dispatch Box for the advice that the chairman of the party will give to the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the

Duchy of Lancaster is very well content that the Prime Minister will make her own decision in her own time. I know that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are eager to have a general election—[Interruption.]—although I suspect not quite as eager as some others.

Telephone Charges

Mr. Willie. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total expenditure on telephone calls by his office for the last financial year.

Mr. Tebbit: I regret that it is not possible to arrive at a figure disaggregated from the bill for the Cabinet Office as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he telephoned any of the British Telecom shareholders instead of sending them letters that invaded their privacy for the sake of party political propaganda? I have had letters from my new constituency in Devon, from professional people, objecting very much to this unsolicited mail. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any public expense involved in that, or was he behaving purely as a party-political hack?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had complaints from professional people and, that being so, they are professional complainers. As Members of Parliament we have all known those in our time. Of course, facilities for the Government that are provided by the taxpayer are not used by the party. The two things are kept entirely and completely separate. The hon. Gentleman asked about invading privacy. There are many complaints about direct mail. For example, my friend the chairman of the National Union was a little disturbed the other day when he received a begging letter from Mr. John Pardoe asking for funds on behalf of the alliance.

Mr. Watts: In his capacity as a telephone user, has my right hon. Friend noted a substantial improvement in the performance of British Telecom since privatisation? Does he expect similar improvements in the performance of the electricity industry after it has been privatised?

Mr. Tebbit: A few years ago there were great queues to obtain telephones, but telephones are now freely and readily available and the service is very good. On the generality of the case, very few companies that have been privatised have not improved their performance. Perhaps the most marked improvement of all is in the National Freight Corporation, which was sold to its employees. I trust that the Opposition are not threatening to re-nationalise that, for a start.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his office spent on telephone calls in the last financial year.

Mr. Tebbit: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wigley: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting his lines right this time. Is he aware that there is considerable misgiving about the way in which he has used his dual offices—one party political and the other in government — to browbeat and bully people into being afraid of what an alternative Government would do to Telecom shares and at the same time asking for finance for his party? Is that not something that his Government and people in his job should avoid doing in future?

Mr. Tebbit: Come, come I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is being a little silly about these things. All that I have done in any of the many offices that I hold is to make sure that the public are well aware of Opposition policies. Provided we stand on our record as a Government and set out the Opposition's policies as against ours, we shall have no problems whatever about walking the next general election, whenever it comes.

Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to say whether any of the telephone conversations that he has had were with Langbaurgh town hall, where the police have been called in to investigate the activities of the Labour-controlled housing department? They were called in by the Labour leader of the council, who is one of seven deselected Labour councillors who will fight as individual Labour against official Labour in the local elections in just over a week's time.

Mr. Tebbit: Fortunately, I am not responsible for the Labour party's internal affairs. If I were, I should have to agree with the hon. Member, not for South Hams, but for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who, in the Daily Telegraph not so long ago criticised the intolerant and bigoted attitude of the Labour party, but that was when he was writing articles about why the Labour party must change, with the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) — somewhat peculiar company for the hon. Gentleman to keep.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Scottish Business

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consideration he has given to changes in the procedures and facilities of the House designed to improve the handling of Scottish business.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have no such proposals for change in mind at present.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman improve on the position whereby a letter to me as a Scottish Member of Parliament from the Secretary of State for Scotland was highlighted at 11 am on Thursday 23 April by the Prime Minister's press secretary at a meeting with the Lobby press? Does that not prove yet again that in the matter of the raid on the BBC in Glasgow in relation to the Zircon affair Mr. Bernard Ingham was the organ grinder and the Secretary of State one of the monkeys?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate this to the handling of Scottish business.

Mr. Dalyell: It is entirely a matter of the procedures of the Scottish Office. It is a unique procedure in the history of the Scottish Office that a letter to a Scottish Member of Parliament should be highlighted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. I just find it difficult to understand.

Mr. Biffen: I had naturally expected the supplementary question to relate to Scottish business as such, but I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has raised a point concerning the administration of the Scottish Office and I will, of course, refer it to my right hon. Friend.

Envelopes

Mr. Greenway: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many (a) self-seal and (b) non self-seal envelopes were provided for use by hon. Members and others during the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: During the period March 1986 to February 1987, 850,000 white self-seal post-paid envelopes and 2,550,000 gummed envelopes of the equivalent type were provided for the use of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough, in his capacity as Lord Privy Seal, to move entirely to self-seal envelopes for hon. Members, bearing in mind the obnoxious taste of gummed envelopes? Alternatively, will he arrange for a more pleasant flavour of gum for the benefit of hon. Members' secretaries?

Mr. Biffen: This is essentially a matter for the Services Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be noted, and I have reason to believe that his view is more widely held.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Self-sealing envelopes are a long-awaited innovation, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the quality is very poor and that they do not stick down? Will he have a word with the suppliers?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, the point has been noted. I gave a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on 8 April, at column 230 of Hansard, explaining the remedial action being taken.

Mr. Cormack: How much do these navel-contemplating questions cost to answer? Could they not be left off the Order Paper?

Mr. Biffen: My mind boggles at assessing the cost of answering such questions or, indeed, the supplementary question that I have just been asked. I believe that my time is costed at rather less than other activities in the House, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Westminster Hall (Railings)

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) has received on the railings in Westminster Hall; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Member addressed a question to me on this matter on 25 June last year, and I refer him to the reply that I gave on that occasion. Neither I nor the Services Committee have received any other recent representations on this subject.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the once temporary railings in Westminster Hall should not be there, that they are ugly, inexpensive and unpleasant, and that they spoil one of the most beautiful buildings in this country? Even if other people seem not to have noticed this, will the Services Committee at least consider replacing the railings with others that are more sightly?

Mr. Biffen: I could not accept any of those strictures. All these are matters of aesthetic taste, and I would back my taste against that of the hon. and learned Gentleman any day. As he asked that the matter be referred to the


Services Committee, I shall do so and point out that he is unique in making his complaint, and that money spent on this is money that cannot readily be spent elsewhere.

Parliamentary Questions

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Dickens: to ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will give his latest estimate of the cost of (a) answering an oral question, (b) answering a written question, (c) printing all questions on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the 1985–86 Session and (d) printing all answers in the Official Report in the 1985–86 Session.

Mr. Biffen: The cost in officials' time of replying to questions vary considerably, but the current average cost is estimated at £75 for;—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman rise, so we must go back to questions to the Secretary of State for Wales.

WALES

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of citizens of the Principality needing cardiac surgery are able to have their operation within Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): Comprehensive information on numbers of patients receiving cardiac surgery outside Wales is not readily available. However, during 1985, the most recent period for which information is held centrally, of 798 patients from Wales reported as having been treated in hospitals in England and Wales and whose specialty on discharge was recorded as cardiac surgery, 704, or 88 per cent., were treated at hospitals in Wales.

Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister recall, in 1982, a report on the needs of cardiac surgery in Wales from Professor Williams? Does he not realise that the shortfall in cardiac surgery in Wales is such that we need two centres for south Wales, one serving the south-west and the other Cardiff?

Mr. Robinson: It is because of that shortfall that the Government have increased the number of open heart operations being carried out in the Principality. At the moment we have a target of about 600 a year, but we intend to increase that number to about 1,100. As a result, a paediatric cardiac unit is to be built at the University hospital of Wales, in Cardiff, as the first phase of a substantial development of the regional cardiac service.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of the dairy industry in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The December agreement by the Council of Agriculture Ministers produced a further package of measures designed to curb the problem of over-supply in milk. While individual dairy farms continue to face financial difficulty as a result of the imposition of quotas, the dairy sector as a whole in Wales showed a marked improvement in incomes during 1985–86.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister would be the first to admit that many dairy farmers in west Wales face financial problems, which many will find it difficult to overcome. To whom does the Secretary of State attribute blame? Is it the Government of the day, the EEC, his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or himself?

Mr. Edwards: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member in his place asking his question, unlike the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who publicised his question in the newspapers but did not come to the House to ask it. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, with substantial surpluses being produced in this country and outside, an adjustment of the milk sector is inevitable. I hope that he will not pretend to his electors that such an adjustment can take place without any pain and discomfort.

Labour Statistics

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of notified vacancies for jobs in Wales and in the Vale of Glamorgan, respectively, at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The number of vacancies notified to jobcentres and career offices in Wales on 6 March 1987 were 12,100 and 300 respectively. This information is not available on a constituency basis, but the corresponding figures for South Glamorgan are 1,580 and 83.

Sir Raymond Gower: Do these figures show an increase over the past 12 months?

Mr. Edwards: There has been a satisfactory level of unfilled vacancies, showing the number of jobs that are available. My hon. Friend should understand that only a proportion of job vacancies are notified to jobcentres and career offices, and there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of newspaper advertising for jobs, particularly in Cardiff and the surrounding areas. I am sure that he will have seen with pleasure the recent survey by the Cardiff chamber of commerce and industry, which says that south Wales is heading for an economic boom.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that, in Clwyd, British Aerospace is going great guns? Will he take this opportunity to demonstrate his full support for the £750 million launch-aid for the Airbus A330, A340, and will he say whether the Government will make a statement? Does he know that many Welsh jobs hang on that decision?

Mr. Edwards: I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman that that company, like so many others in Wales, is going great guns. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question whether a statement is made from the Dispatch Box is not my responsibility.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I support the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) in emphasising the enormous importance of that project, not only to north Wales, but to the aviation industry generally. I hope that my right hon. Friend will exercise what influence he can to ensure that the necessary launch-aid is forthcoming.

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an extremely important project, and that it is a company


whose future is of the greatest significance to his constituents and many others. He would not expect me to

make a statement on the subject this afternoon because, as he knows, I am not the Minister who is primarily responsible.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
The House will be aware of the recent serious increase in the number of casualties which have been caused by terrorist actions. In the last week in particular, two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, one Ulster Defence Regiment soldier and three civilians have been murdered. The civilian deaths were of the foreman of a building company, and most recently the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson.
As to the details of this latest outrage, while I have not yet received the full report on it, I have had an initial discussion with the Deputy Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, and I shall be meeting the Chief Constable and the GOC again later today. However, I can give the House some further information.
The explosives were in a blue Cortina car, which had been reported stolen a month ago in South Armagh. At the time of its theft, the car had GB number plates. It is believed to have been left only a few minutes earlier at the side of the road between the border crossing point and the security force check point. The method of detonation appears to have been by radio signal. In addition to the two fatalities, nine other people were injured.
The question has rightly been raised as to how there could have been any outside knowledge of Sir Maurice and Lady Gibson's movements. The RUC advised me of evidence that bookings were made in their own names through a travel agency in Belfast on 29 December, and that on 12 February a change was made to the date of their return. The hooking form included the description and registration number of the car. Further detailed investigations are continuing and I will inform the House as appropriate of any further information.
I know that the whole House will share with me the feelings of horror at this outrage, at the loss of a distinguished and brave member of the Northern Ireland judiciary and of his wife, and to express our deepest sympathy to their families.
But while public attention has been focused on this particular outrage, it would be quite wrong not to express our deep concern equally about the other tragic victims of this most recent and savage burst of terrorist violence. The recent and cowardly attacks on off-duty members of the security forces, coupled with murders of ploicemen in Newcastle and Portrush, the murder of a civilian prison instructor at Magee college, and the use of his body to lure two further members of the RUC to their deaths are indicative of a renewed desperation and viciousness in the IRA campaign. The security forces will meet the challenge of these new tactics by the IRA with the resolution and courage that have served them so well in the past, and the Government will give them all possible support in their vital task.
But while the role of the RUC and the armed forces is crucial in the front line against terrorism, they also need the unqualified support of the whole community in their task.
The clear purpose of the IRA at this time is to undermine the morale of the security forces, to increase

tension and hatred between the communities and thus to provoke over-reaction from some Unionists and to create distrust and ill will between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. That is their purpose, but they will not succeed.
The security forces have given abundant proof of their courage and determination to stand against terrorism. They now look to the whole community to show the same steadfastness in the face of the current campaign and for everybody to show particulatr vigilance over theit personal security. Above all, it is the time when the whole community must give its unqualified support for the RUC and the armed forces, and give the fullest co-operation in this vital fight to defeat the terrorists.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On behalf of the Opposition, may I add our outright condemnation to that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following the series of tragedies that have overtaken our fellow citizens in that part of the United Kingdom? May I also extend our condolences and deep regret to the son and daughter of Sir Maurice and Lady Gibson who, like so many others in Northern Ireland, have had their parents tragically taken from them?
The Secretary of State referred to others who had lost their lives in Northern Ireland, including two members of the RUC, one UDR soldier and three civilians over the past week. About 29 people have lost thier lives since the beginning of the year. We share with the Secretary of State the deep sense of loss and tragedy and extend to families who have lost their loved ones our deep compassion and condolences. Not for the first time, the point has to be made that the bombs and bullets of the IRA create widows and orphans, but add nothing significant to the political debate.
Sir Maurice Gibson, as Lord Justice of Appeal at the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland, was an Irishman through and through. He dedicated his life to the community in which he was born, in which he lived and in which he has now died. His wife, Lady Gibson, was innocent of any involvement except the involvement of marriage and devotion to her husband, for which she has paid a grievous price. It should be remembered that, when Lord Louis Mountbatten died in similar circumstances, a young Irish boy aged eight or nine died at the same time. The lesson for the whole island of Ireland is that the IRA kills Irish men and Irish women, seeks to be its own judge, jury and executioner and seeks by violence what it cannot achieve by election.
The House has often been described as the mother of democracies. How long, therefore, will it take for those who perpetrate violence to understand that the House and this country will never bend the knee to terrorists and never accept submission to the bullet and that our people are as hardy now in their resistance to violence as they were during the last war? To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, what kind of people does the IRA think we are?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that half a tonne of explosives was found in County Cavan in the Republic of Ireland on 22 April and that on 23 April a further large haul of explosives was found in Donegal near Bunbeg? We accept that there has been enhanced cross-border co-operation between the Governments of the Republic and the United Kingdom since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but will the Secretary of State agree that a greater public perception of that increased co-operation is


required? Will he see how the public may be made aware, without our giving away secrets to the IRA, of what is being done in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland? If the Anglo-Irish Agreement is perceived in private among civil servants and politicians to be a success, equally it must be perceived to be a success by the public. Otherwise, the IRA will indeed undermine confidence in the political process and in the agreement itself.
Will the Secretary of State review the concept of a no-man's-land between the Republic and Northern Ireland on the land border of two sovereign states and ensure that never again can cars packed with explosives be parked there to endanger the lives of those passing from the Republic to the north?
What steps are being taken to impress upon those who may be at risk in Northern Ireland that, in their daily programme of living, they should be less sanguine and less philosophical and more alert to the danger of death not only for themselves, but for their families?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, there must be vigilance for members of the security forces, vigilance for members of the RUC and the UDR and vigilance for the population?
This time of crisis must be a time of opportunity to ensure that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is strong enough to survive IRA attacks and enchance still further cooperation between the Republic and the United Kingdom in the interests of our respective democracies.

Mr. King: It is certainly true that there have been three major finds of explosives in recent days, one by the RUC and two by the Garda. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) sought to show, those finds put into perspective the fact that the security forces have had a number of very significant successes in frustrating other serious attacks.
I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point about being more forthcoming about some of the steps and arrangements that we are seeking to make in regard to cross-border security. By their nature, a number of the arrangements and the proposals that we are working on at the present time must remain not just confidential, but secret. That is one of the difficulties in getting people to understand some of the basic work that is being done in this area.
I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about no no-man's-land. There is no no-man's-land — that ground is patrolled by the Army—but it is true that the security forces vehicle checkpoint is some distance back from the border because of the problems that have been experienced. We are aware of the tragedy of 1985 and the reason why the location of that checkpoint is a little back from the border.
With regard to personal security, the RUC seeks to give the clearest possible advice to everybody who is under any threat within Northern Ireland. Its advice is well known, as is its readiness always to seek to help with measures to assist. Obviously there is a clear responsibility on individuals to pay the closest possible attention to sensible measures of security for their own persons.
Lastly, I very much appreciate the forthright way in which the hon. Gentleman spoke about the unwillingness of this House to give any quarter whatever to the terrorist threat. I talked about the need for everybody to show

steadfastness in the face of that terrorist threat. Above all, it is from this House of Commons, these Houses of Parliament that that lead should come. The people of Northern Ireland should know that they have our total support in the fight against terrorism and that, regardless of party, regardless of controversy of other kinds, we are united in that matter.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Might I explain that my colleagues and I who represent Northern Ireland feel that, in view of the gravity of the issues, it would be utterly futile to deal with those grave matters by means of superficial exchanges across the Floor of the House?

Mr. King: I obviously appreciate, and certainly do not dissent from, the right hon. Gentleman's expression of concern about the gravity of the position. I obviously share that concern. However, I believe that it must be a matter for regret if it is not in this House of Commons, in this House of the Parliament of the Union that we stand together, that we discuss these issues and that we act in concert to try to bring to book the real enemy that we face. This is not a matter of political division; it is the evil of terrorism against which we should act in concert.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have opposed and do oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement wish fully to support his appeal for everyone in Northern Ireland to support the security forces in these grave times?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, instead of recriminating over transgressions of the border by the security forces of the Republic and the United Kingdom, the two sovereign Governments should now agree to free movement across the border by those forces in pursuit of terrorism? After so many years, is it not time that the British armed forces started talking and working directly with the Irish Army and air corps.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows as well as anybody in the House the sensitivities surrounding the matter. It is very much my hope that we can, working with the Irish Government—I much appreciate the totally unqualified support that we received from the new Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey in his statement and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Lenihan, who have promised every available support—bring to justice the perpetrators of this crime and others. To those who believe that there is no possibility of co-operation and hope, I must say that that seems to me to be a policy of despair. I believe that there is recognition throughout the island of Ireland of the damage that terrorism is doing, in terms of physical outrage in the north and without doubt in terms of economic damage and suffering in the south. I believe that there is a determination to rid the island once and for all of the scourge of terrorism. I say to my hon. Friend, without going into detail, that I take very seriously the points that he makes. I hope that we can make some progress around the issues that he mentioned.

Mr. David Alton: Hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to be associated with the strongest possible condemnation of the hateful and cowardly outrage which took place this weekend. I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with what has been said.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the continued violence demonstrates the fear among extreme elements


about the agreement, which represents a way in which majority and minority traditions may gradually fulfil their aspirations and obtain justice? Is it not therefore vital for the whole House unequivocally to reiterate its determination to maintain the agreement? Will the Secretary of State consider building on the agreement by establishing a joint security commission? Does he agree that it would be very helpful if Cardinal O'Fiaich and politicians from the nationalist tradition offered unambiguous support for the RUC and encouraged Catholics to support and join the force?

Mr. King: I appreciate very much the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Whatever view others may hold about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, from a political point of view there is absolutely no question but that the IRA fears it very much indeed because it sees that the resource of the border—the very length of it and the existence of the two jurisdictions—itself provides that advantage which the terrorists can exploit in both directions. Both Governments are well aware of that. Against that background, the IRA feels that we might succeed effectively in denying them that resource. Of course it is not something that can be achieved overnight. Those who suggest that grossly underestimate the skill and cunning of some of the terrorist organisations, and to do that would be a grave mistake.
It certainly would be very helpful in this fight if the security forces were to feel that they had the unqualified support of all the people in Northern Ireland. I look to all, particularly those in the Nationalist community, to give unqualified support to those men in the security forces who stand out day and night, often to protect their own members, against violence and intimidation. In their current challenge, it is in the interests of the majority and minority communities alike to stand together beside the forces of law and order.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is it not immensely depressing to hear the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) say that he wishes to stand aside from these terrible events in his own Province? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] Is that not an abdication of responsibility which is wholly to be condemned? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a feeling in this country that the co-operation between the RUC and other forces — the Garda and military forces in southern Ireland—is not as good as it should be and not as good as was promised, and that it could have prevented the tragedy?

Mr. King: I am not sure that I would go so far as to endorse my hon. Friend's latter point, but we certainly see the potential for developing further the co-operation between the RUC and the Garda. Some people talk as if it were just a matter of signing some document, and one would get instant improvement in co-operation. It has to be built upon. I draw on the professional advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who goes no further than to say that, in his judgment, it provides the best opportunity for the development of closer co-operation, and the best opportunity for dealing with terrorism more effectively. That is the honest and truthful appraisal of the situation. There is nothing on a plate, but that opportunity is provided. Anybody who really believes that we shall make

a more effective response against the terrorists by not working in close co-operation and harmony with the Irish Government misunderstands the reality of the situation.
I should like to add this to my hon. Friend. There may have been a misunderstanding. I hope that I misunderstood slightly what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) meant. I think that he was implying—some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may not have understood this — that it was not that he declined to use the Chamber to discuss the matter, but that this question exchange was not the occasion that he would choose.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: As the Member in whose constituency that terrible deed took place, on behalf of my party I should like to add our condolences to the family of Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, and, indeed, to the families of all the people in the north of Ireland who have suffered in the recent past.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are two things that the Provisional IRA fear most? The first is the close co-operation between the British Government and the Irish Government in the search to bring about peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The second is that the Nationalist community, the Catholic community in the north of Ireland, will be weaned away from support for the Provisional IRA and leave it isolated.
Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that one of the aims of the Provisional IRA at present is to provoke the type of punitive reaction that would prevent that from happening? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his Government, through himself, will be careful not to play into the Provisional IRA's hands by doing that?

Mr. King: We are anxious to build the support of the minority community in Northern Ireland and closer identification with administration and security efforts in the Province. That is very important. After the recent tragedy, I am sure that many in the Nationalist community will have learnt yet further what a totally unacceptable nature and viciousness the terrorists have. It is worth remarking that whoever detonated that bomb had no scruples about the other accidents that they might have caused at that time, no matter how horrific the death of Lord Justice Gibson. Not only were there the rugby players who were travelling south and the girls who appeared on television, but there was a bus with 50 schoolchildren taking part in a sports exchange, which was travelling north. These people have no compunction or scruples whatsoever, no matter how much suffering they may cause. These people hold out no promise whatsoever for the future of people anywhere in the island of Ireland and deserve the total condemnation of us all.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that we are all depressed by the latest wave of killings, but as it is widely recognised that the RUC is better trained and better equipped than the police force in the Republic, can my right hon. Friend say what offers of training or equipment have been made to the police in the Republic since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and how many of those offers have been accepted?

Mr. King: A number of suggestions have been made and offers of help given. Some have been accepted. Further training is being undertaken in different ways.


However, the point behind my hon. Friend's question is correct. I assure him that we are anxious to assist in any possible way.

Mr. Roy Mason: There is no doubt that the political wing of the Provisional IRA has had to give way to a more militant campaign since it was shunned in the elections in the Irish Republic. Therefore, its increased kill and bomb campaign is intended to terrorise the whole Province and, coincidentally, to try to smash the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Is the Secretary of State aware that that will now necessitate a higher security profile in many previously quiet areas? Will he confirm that, if need be, more British troops will be drafted into the Province? I hope that he will consider parallel patrols by the Army and RUC and that, for a time, they will increase their presence on the streets. I hope that he will also consider increasing the facilities of the British Army and of the special forces in the Province so that they can retaliate and capture more easily than hitherto. The Secretary of State must now turn the tide and retaliate more effectively against the terrorists. If he adopts some, if not all, of those measures, I am sure that he will receive the support of most hon. Members in this House.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he was a predecessor in my office, I listened with particular respect to his points. I accept his analysis of the split in Sinn Fein following the last Ard Fheis, its decision to stand and to take seats in the Dail, with the consequent humiliation at the polls and the advent of a new Government in the Irish Republic. I am sure that some of those factors, and their consequences, are the explanation behind the recent burst of violence. Although any death is one too many, it is fair to say that the violence of the past few weeks has followed a period when, otherwise, casualties were significantly lower than in the corresponding period last year.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go further, but I take careful note of all the points that he has made. A number of those options must be considered and some will undoubtedly be discussed later today when I meet the leaders of the security forces.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it not a fact that, throughout the United Kingdom — in England, Scotland and Wales—many people have laid down their lives in defence of the Union and, in so doing, have supported the policies that have been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members? In those circumstances, is it not a tragedy that, for the most part those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies remain silent in this House?

Mr. King: Obviously, I do regret that fact. I hope that it will be recognised that this is the Parliament of the Union where such debate and discussion should take place, through official and other channels. I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend about the commitment in the whole of the United Kingdom for the rights of people in Northern Ireland to live in freedom from fear. That commitment is absolute and has been endorsed by successive Governments. I say that when my own regiment is serving in Northern Ireland—and doing so gladly—and when some of my consitituents, many other hon.

Members' constitituents, and the sons of our constituents, from all parts of the United Kingdom, are serving in Northern Ireland. Obviously, people in the Province are in the front line, and the courage of the RUC and the UDR is outstanding, but the effort that is made by the whole of the United Kingdom should be recognised.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Without wishing to appear to be making unhelpful premature judgments, as some Unionist Members were quick to do over the weekend, does the Secretary of State not think that there were at least two surprising and basic deficiencies in the security arrangements? First, will he inform the House why an empty car was allowed to remain by the roadside in such a sensitive area? Secondly, why were Lord Justice Gibson and his wife allowed to publicise their travel arrangements so long in advance—I repeat the word "publicise"?

Mr. King: I would rather not comment on the hon. Gentleman's latter point. People must take responsibility for their affairs and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the clearest guidance is given. All hon. Members, particularly those representing the Province, know of the guidance from the RUC and of the sensible, intelligent precautions to take. I would rather not comment further on that.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the road on which the car was parked carries a tremendous volume of cross-border traffic and that there is a considerable amount of parking on parts of it. Unfortunately, this vehicle was not observed in sufficent time. This has not yet been corroborated, but I understand that the presence of the vehicle had just been reported to the RUC at the time of the incident.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is it not deplorable that some Opposition Members seized this incident to accuse the security forces in the South of leaking information to the IRA? Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on that and to confirm that the forces in the South have been increasing the sums spent on border operations? Will he further confirm that the time has come for joint patrols between the two armies, bearing in mind that both sovereign states are dedicated to the eradication of this particularly beastly form of international terrorism?

Mr. King: In tragic incidents of this type, the first stories that appear are often confused and it is unfortunate if any allegations are made before there is proper evidence. The evidence that has since appeared shows that there were several ways in which the matter could have become more public knowledge. Other aspects have not yet been corroborated, so I shall not disclose them to the House, but they might have tended practically to "publicise", to use the word of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), the journey even more.
We are certainly looking for the fullest co-operation with the Government of the Republic. My hon. Friend rightly asked about resources, and the present conditions and difficult problems of the Irish economy are no secret to the House. Obviously, bearing in mind those difficulties, we shall hope for a maximum contribution from the Republic, and we appreciate the approach that the new Government are taking on this matter.

Mr. Rob Hayward: In welcoming the modest, lucid statement of the hon. Member for


Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn those who continue to invite Sinn Fein spokesmen to public meetings in this part of the country. including that which took place in Bristol and was chaired by Councillor Ron Thomas? At that meeting the leader of the Labour group, Councillor Roger Berry, sat uncritically while the Sinn Fein spokesman expressed support for the IRA's right to "fight for freedom".

Mr. King: I join my hon. Friend in condemning such action without qualification. The apologists for the IRA pretend that there is political justification for its acts, but the whole world knows from following the election in the Republic how minuscule its support is even in the Republic of Ireland. It is now clear from recent events that its only remaining argument is terror. That is why the IRA will be defeated.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not a reason why the IRA is committing such atrocities that it has seen its electoral support through Sinn Fein continue to plummet as a result of the success of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Should we not continue to build on that success and to improve security to ensure there is no hiding place for any terrorist, either north or south of the border?

Mr. King: I believe that the IRA can see, not only in the continuing co-operation between the British and Irish Governments—continuing, moreover, during the period of a change of Government in the Republic—but in the growing international co-operation against terrorism, that they can find no support whatever from any decent or respectable corner of the civilised world. I believe profoundly that the IRA will be frustrated in its attempts to procure arms and to win support and that we shall see the net closing gradually. That is what the IRA can also see,

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the subsequent business of the House and bear in mind the fact that we have a further statement. I shall call one further question. Mr. Marlow.[Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that the whole House has the feeling that, if this level of violence were to take place in England, there would be a public outcry demanding much stronger measures than we have at the moment. Can I follow the point made by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) that perhaps my right hon. Friend could give more scope to the security forces to put, let us say, the wind up the terrorists — many, if not most, of whom are known? It would seem that the risks to terrorists of terrorist action are currently insufficient.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will have heard my answer to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). It would be wrong not to recognise the facts of the position, which are that earlier this year there was some reduction in casualties, but certainly now there is a serious increase; overall, the levels of violence and suffering are unacceptable. I am seriously considering any proposals from the security forces about the ways in which their efforts, which we back wholeheartedly, can be even more effective.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I will take points of order after the application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Porter: My point of order arises directly from the last questions.

Mr. Speaker: That may be, but I shall still take it at the end.

Inner Cities

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the inner cities initiative and the city action teams.
In February last year I announced the setting up of the new inner cities initiative in England. Its aim was to improve the targeting, and increase the benefit to local people, of the money channelled through existing central Government programmes in eight small inner city areas. We give it a modest top-up budget to test out new approaches to local problems, in particular those designed to improve training and increase the opportunities for employment and self-employment for local people. Task forces were set up in shop-front offices in each of the eight areas to co-ordinate Government action and to make better use of the large amounts of public money already being spent there. They were also given the job of working with the private sector, local authorities, voluntary groups and the residents themselves in developing local solutions to local problems.
The inner cities initiative was set up as an experimental programme. In a short time it has already shown what can be achieved by a common partnership of effort between the public and private sector with the active involvement of local people. Five different Government Departments have been involved in this work and I am also grateful for the way in which the Manpower Services Commission has supported the initiative by giving the inner cities high priority in targeting its programmes. The initiative has demonstrated how the Government, by operating at a local level, can give a lead by pulling together the efforts of all those who are involved in our inner cities.
The initiative has now been running for over a year. There have been significant and positive results. Our eight task forces have put themselves firmly on the local map. The task force have shown that new ideas and a fresh approach are just as important as money in releasing the enormous fund of energy and ideas that local people have available to tackle their problems. We said from the outset that any lessons learned from our eight small areas would be applied more widely to other inner city districts.
The results so far are so encouraging that I have now decided to expand the coverage of the initiative to other towns and cities, while retaining its experimental and informal nature. Therefore, I have decided to set up a further eight task forces on the same basis as the original eight. They will be located in parts of Coventry, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Nottingham, Rochdale, Preston, Wolverhampton and the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
The extra funds available to all the task forces to top up other programmes and to support new ideas will be increased to £14 million for 1987–88. Experience shows that the availability of this top-up money will enable all the task forces to develop programmes of action to help achieve the goals of the initiative, particularly in employment and enterprise. The approach works best where there is a genuine partnership of effort. We shall be looking to work with local people, local authorities and local industry and commerce to achieve that partnership.
I also propose to carry forward the work of the five city action teams, which we set up two years ago. Those teams

consist of the regional directors of the Department of the Environment, Department of Trade and Industry and the MSC in each of the cities. They dispose of large budgets, which they seek to co-ordinate more closely, and we did not originally expect them to need separate CAT budgets as a team. However, last May we gave £1 million to the Newcastle-Gateshead team as part of a package of measures to relieve the effects in the north-east of the shipbuilding redundancies. That city action team used this sum very effectively to plug gaps in its ability to support services for local business and training in new technology. Its achievements demonstrate that the city action teams have an important part to play in accelerating progress in areas crucial to the regeneration of our inner cities and in attracting private sector support for worthwhile projects. Accordingly I shall be making £1 million available to each of the five city action teams in 1987–88 to be spent on the basis of a clear strategy that each team will be asked to prepare for local action.
The additional resources required for the expanded inner cities initiative and for the city action teams—an extra £10 million in 1987–88—will be found from within my Department's existing provision and, because we are committed to full value for money for Government spending, we shall continue to monitor and evaluate the contribution which these measures are making to urban regeneration.
One of the aims of our inner cities initiative has been to pool the efforts and resources of all Government Departments with a responsibility for our cities. As part of that concerted approach, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and I will be making a joint action for cities presentation tomorrow morning in London's docklands. This will be the first of a series of presentations across the country aimed at the business community, the voluntary sector and other opinion formers in our inner cities, to increase their involvement with Government efforts to make our cities better, safer and more attractive places in which to live and to do business.
The drive to help our inner cities is a key priority for the Government. It reflects our determination that all our people, wherever they live—north, midlands or south—should have the opportunity to share in this country's growing economic success. It reflects our belief in the younger generation, including those young people growing up in our multiracial inner cities, and our determination to improve their prospects. We have always made substantial resources available. What we are now doing is targeting those resources better to ensure that it is the people who live in our inner cities who benefit from our efforts. This initiative is designed to help inner city residents by helping them acquire new skills so that they can compete on equal terms for the opportunities which are increasingly becoming available; by helping them overcome the problems they face in setting up in business on their own account; and by helping to make our inner cities the sort of place where people want to live and where businesses want to invest. Today's announcement is just the latest in a long line of measures to promote action for cities, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Evans: It is increasingly obvious from the bribes that are flowing from the Cabinet that a general election is imminent. It is obvious that it will be in June, whether it be on 11 June or 18 June. If the


hypocritical waffle that we have had from the Paymaster General today is an election bribe, it is the most miserable little sprat that we have ever had. It will not catch any mackerel and it certainly will not persuade anyone to vote other than Labour in the areas that he mentioned.
The Government are proposing to establish a further eight city action teams and are giving them all of £10 million to tackle the appalling problems of massive unemployment, had housing and multiple deprivation. The Government regard £10 million as the solution to the problem. But what is the background to the problems of most of the inner cities in our country today? Since 1979 about £200,000 million has been cut from the rate support grant to local authorities. Indeed, the authorities mentioned in this statement have been collectively deprived of hundreds of millions of pounds of rate support grant. The Government propose only a further £10 million. Twenty-five per cent. of Britain's schools do not have inside toilets. There is a £700 million backlog of repairs to Britain's secondary schools. The council house repair backlog is rising at the rate of £900 million a year and 1,300,000 householders are now on council house waiting lists. There is a £1,700 million backlog of repairs to sewers and drains, most of them in the inner city areas of our nation. However, the Government have pledged to spend only £10 million solving the problems of inner cities.
Despite the smallness of the extra funds, I am certain that the local authorities of this country, especially the Labour-controlled authorities such as those the Paymaster General has listed, have shown themselves willing and anxious to co-operate in any meaningful scheme that will help to solve the problems of unemployment and deprivation in their areas. But can the Minister say whether he has consulted the local authorities he named in his statement and, if not, why not? Will he consult them in the future because in his statement he informed us that he will be looking to work with local people, local authorities and local industry and commerce to achieve a partnership of effort? Will he give an undertaking that the local authorities will take the lead role in any initiatives to solve the problems in their areas?
Under this Government, unemployment has tripled in these areas since 1979, most of it in what was once the manufacturing industry. With that increased unemployment has come increased poverty and hardship. The problems of those areas, like the problems of the rest of the country, will not be solved by gimmicks such as city action teams and job training schemes, but by the election of a Labour Government with powers and pledges to solve the problems of unemployment in this country. That is why we will win the election in June or whenever the Government call it.

Mr. Clarke: I suppose I am not surprised that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) began by relating all this to elections. If he feels that further Government assistance to inner cities will do his party harm, I hope that his worst fears are justified. He began by saying that we are producing election bribes. I point out that this is merely a logical extension of the work that inner city task forces started 12 months ago and that city action teams started two years ago, together with the enterprise zones, the urban development corporations and the concerted policy the Government have been developing on inner city problems for many years. The hon. Gentleman accused me of hypocrisy, but in this case I think he is guilty

of hypocritical cynicism about every good idea that comes from the Government about employment, training, inner cities or any other action.
The hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning local authorities. So far as I am aware, the sole policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on inner city problems is that more money should be given to Labour local authorities and that they should be allowed to put up the rates again. However, that has had the effect of driving away business and employment opportunities from a large number of the areas we are talking about.
Trying to put together inner city or city expenditure as a whole is difficult. However, in the past year the Government spent well over £700 million tackling inner city housing dereliction and decay. We are talking here about eight small areas, now to be 16 areas, where the Government will work directly on the ground with small groups of officials and will work with the local people on a shop-front basis, targeting money into those small areas. We spent about £80 million last year in the original eight task force areas and we are spending this year about £82 million in the eight new task force areas. On top of that is this £14 million in top-up funds to encourage new ideas and new approaches, and to help stimulate progress more quickly.
We wish to co-operate with local authorities and I trust that the eight local authorities in whose areas we intend to operate will work with us. We have had good co-operation so far. In the case of Labour-controlled Birmingham, for example, I disapprove of quite a lot of its politics and it disapproves of quite a lot of mine, but the fact is that we have worked together to produce a lot of extremely good projects which have benefited the people of Handsworth and Aston. When dealing with useless organisations that will not co-operate, such as the Labour councils in Southwark and Leicester, one has to go to voluntary bodies, the private sector or anybody else of good will to do some good for the residents.
I hope that the eight authorities we are now approaching will work with us. Our intention is to work with them. We have made informal soundings of some. We shall be consulting them and I look forward to working in partnership with the local authorities, the private sector, voluntary bodies and the people who live in the inner city districts of the eight cities I have mentioned.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Will the Minister kindly tell me where in Docklands he is holding his lush high-profile public relations exercise tomorrow? Would it be in one of the penthouse flats being made available to my constituents at no more than £375,000 a time, or would it be in the workshop of one of the 50 or 60 small and medium-sized firms that are presently being driven out, with their employees being put out of work, by the activities of the London Docklands development corporation?

Mr. Clarke: The conference is being held in the Limehouse Studio. Limehouse Studio is one of the places I have visited most recently in the docklands urban development corporation area. It has only to be seen to bear witness to the outstanding success of the whole idea of urban development corporations. It shows what can he achieved by attracting private sector investment into a derelict area.
As a Minister, I first went to the docklands when I was a junior Minister at the Department of Transport. I visited


those empty expanses of water and derelict warehouses that have been created by years of industrial relations problems and a failure to adjust to change. I attended meetings where Labour councillors from the local authorities bickered endlessly about no solutions in particular for turning Docklands around. I have seen since what the Docklands development corporation has achieved. If the hon. Gentleman prefers Docklands as it was before the Government acted, compared with Docklands as it is now after the work of the development corporation, I can say only that he is advocating a policy of total despair for inner city residents all over the country.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the biggest handicap for the inner cities is the bureaucratic, negative and cynical Socialism practised by Labour local authorities within the areas mentioned? Does he also agree that the city action teams of Tyneside and Cleveland are regarded as a breath of fresh air, and that the extra million quid will be very welcome? However, does he also agree that that partnership will not reach fruition until local authorities such as Newcastle and Middlesbrough reduce their rates and promote policies that encourage business and job creation?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that his description of the role of the local authorities in the cities is true in most, if not all, cases. However, to a varying degree, many Labour authorities are, unfortunately, hostile to new ideas and resistant to innovation. Even where we co-operate with them, as we strive to do, I find that the process of decision-making within the local government machine is distressingly slow. Nevertheless, I concede that I can cite examples of Labour-controlled local authorities with which it is possible to work. We shall be striving to work with local authorities of whatever political complexion in the eight places I have mentioned.
I agree that rates are particularly destructive to the development of new business. A restraint on rate levels in the cities will be an enormous advantage in attracting new investment. Rate capping was about the only good news that businesses had in some of those boroughs and it is the only thing that is making it possible to attract new business into them now.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Paymaster General aware that no areas have suffered more grievously under this Government than the inner cities? In my constituency, unemployment has gone up by over 300 per cent. Inner cities have suffered in particular by losing large sums of rate support grant. My borough of Newham has been robbed of more than £100 million since the Government have been in office. Around the country, many hundreds of millions of pounds of rate support grant has been lost. Is he aware that the puny £8 million that he announced last year and the £10 million he has announced today are derisory by contrast? Is he also aware that his press conference tomorrow will be seen as an insulting election gimmick, and that what we really need is a partnership between Government and local authorities—not making war on the local authorities—to bring back enterprise and employment? In the inner cities we need a major housing programme, rather than a cut in expenditure on public sector housing by 60 per cent., which is what the Government have done.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). As far as I can understand it, Labour party policy is that the amount of rate support grant should be increased to allow Labour local authorities to go back to spending money at whatever level they wish, and that they should be allowed to put the rates up again. That is just about the Labour party's policy, full stop. When it comes to the work of urban regeneration and the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that the urban programme, for which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction who is sitting alongside me is responsible, has trebled in real terms during the lifetime of the Government. A total of 75 per cent. of that money comes from central Government and it is making a big contribution to the regeneration of local areas. The Government must work directly. It is no good saying that our only contact with the cities must be through Labour local authorities, which must have money given to them and be left to get on with the job. I am afraid that far too many of them show that, left to themselves, they cannot get on with the job. Neverthelss, partnership with them is what we wish to achieve.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend can find £10 million for the problems of the inner cities. However, would he not have thought that there are other parts of the United Kingdom that have greater priorities, where people are being murdered by the day? Would not the Northern Ireland Office be better off with the £10 million to spend on security in the Province, rather than to have to make expressions to the House of abhorrence, disgust and shock, which do nothing to save lives?

Mr. Clarke: Like my hon. Friend, I sat through the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Nothern Ireland a moment ago. I know that my hon. Friend has a close involvement with the affairs of Ulster and the problems the Province faces. I accept that Ulster requires considerable help in restoring its economy and giving people worthwhile employment and training opportunities to raise their expectations and hopes. I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend that our initiative for the inner cities in England is not in competition with any worthwhile claims for resources in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Welcome though the idea and practice of partnership and the new resources are, does the Paymaster General not accept that there are still many other areas in the inner cities in Britain that require this sort of assistance and partnership? Does he agree that the major problems of our inner cities have been caused by the economic and industrial policies of the Government, particularly in the regions and the cutbacks in rate support grant that have hit many areas, not least my own, very hard in recent times? The cuts in rate support grant have made it impossible for the local authorities to cope with the problems of economic and industrial decline that the Government's economic policies have brought about.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that there are many areas other than the 16 in which this initiative will be operating and the five city action team areas that could benefit from a concerted, direct Government approach. We are working


on an experimental, informal basis in those representative 16 areas now. However, it is plainly our intention to apply any lessons we learn there throughout other areas. The agencies with which we are working—Business in the Community, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Evangelical Alliance, many of the clearing banks, and the residents themselves—are, I trust, developing new approaches to a long-standing problem that needs to be tackled in many of our cities.
With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really believes that the problems of our inner cities are some sudden creation of the past few years of economic difficulty. Inner city problems have been growing in this country because of profound structural and social change for over 20 years. What we are now seeing is an attempt to tackle them by central Government giving a lead to every other agency of good will in a more direct way than we have seen before, and I trust that that lead will be returned. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's simplistic analysis, which Labour Members share, which is that somehow the problem has something to do with rate support grant and that if the rate support grant was put back we would not have any inner city problems. Giving more rate support grant to some of the inner London boroughs would make their problems worse rather than better.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The Minister was remarking to the House about the great successes of the past 12 months. Can he tell us whether that includes the inner city areas of Manchester, because I can tell the House that unemployment there is now standing at 35 per cent.? That hardly illustrates the success story of a Government who have been in power now for eight years. The Minister refers to finding the £10 million from his own Department's estimates. Can he tell the House where the £10 million is coming from? Does it mean that other schemes will be abandoned to find that money, or was it already in the Department?
How can the Minister say to us that finding £1 million for the redundant shipbuilders will help when there are thousands and thousands of redundant engineers? What difference will £1 million make when what they really want is jobs?

Mr. Clarke: Many good things have happened, and are still happening, in Manchester in recent years, and the city is steadily recovering. One of the major physical contributions that the Government have made is the new G-MEX exhibition centre which has largely been funded by central Government money. The hon. Gentleman should look next door to Salford and see what is happening in Salford quay and elsewhere. In the Moss Side task force area, with which this initiative is concerned, we are pursuing a programme with Selcare Trust to provide new engineering workshops for 75 people. In addition, bursaries are being provided to the Prince's Youth Business Trust in Moss Side. These are only the first of many projects that are now coming along to help the inhabitants of Moss Side and Hulme. Instead of simply trying to denigrate and run down these programmes, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and those who represent these great cities in England will see that they are beginning to succeed and that they will lend their efforts to encourage local people to co-operate with them as well.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement and share his disappointment that Opposition Members have not given it a better welcome, especially as so many of these problem areas come under Labour-controlled authorities. When can we see an extension of this excellent initiative to areas such as Bolton where there is high unemployment and where I am sure this initiative would be much welcomed? Secondly, will he consider widening the membership of his city action teams by including the regional director of the DHSS?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his condolences about the reaction of the Labour party. It is wholly predictable on this subject. Every statement that I have ever made as a Minister in the Department of Employment has been greeted by the Opposition with nothing but sneering cynicism coupled with no positive proposals of their own. There is merely an attempt to run down what we are doing. I do not find that a very encouraging approach to the problems of the inner cities.
I appreciate the claims of Bolton, and the selection of further places in which to experiment in Lancashire was extremely difficult. We tried to get as representative a mix as we could and we have now chosen Preston and Rochdale, with which Bolton might be bracketed. Any lessons learnt there can, I trust, rapidly be extended to Bolton as well.
Although the city action teams principally comprise the three Departments that I have mentioned, I take my hon. Friend's point that it is important that those responsible for the policy of other Government Departments should get involved as well, and to a large extent they do.

Mr. Don Dixon: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the devastation caused by the Government's policies is not confined to inner city areas? For example, South Tyneside — the local authority that I represent—has the highest unemployment rate outside Northern Ireland, and the total amount of money that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced today in his election gimmick is less than the amount of rate support grant that the Government have stolen from South Tyneside since 1979. Incidentally, South Tyneside is the smallest metropolitan district council in the country.

Mr. Clarke: I have been to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I would not for a moment underestimate the appalling economic problems that it faces. His claim that they are the result of the economic policies of the last few years is, frankly, ridiculous. There has been a longstanding industrial and employment problem in his area. I have not announced a new task force for Jarrow and Tyneside today because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment only recently announced a new urban development corporation for Tyneside, with more than £100 million of new resources going in over the next five years.
The hon. Gentleman's claim that good news of this kind is all election gimmickry ignores the fact that this policy has been steadily emerging over the last five years, despite the sustained suspicions and resistance of the Labour party and other Opposition Members.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: All reasonable people will welcome my right hon. And


learned Friend's statement today and recognise the Opposition's comments as nothing more than sour grapes. I thank him very much indeed for including the city of Nottingham in the additional aid, because I know that, following his visit to our city, he was made well aware of the willingness of the public and private sectors to work together. I also add my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend and other senior colleagues who have demonstrated that it is possible for a number of Departments of State to work together and join in common cause for the benefit of our inner cities.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and look forward to working with him in that part of the area that is in his constituency. He does not represent the entirety of Forest Fields, Radford and Lenton, but he represents enough of it. I shall certainly need his assistance. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Employment and myself have been to Nottingham recently and have followed its affairs very closely. We tried to engage the interest of the local authority and local industry, and some of the things that have happened recently are an attempt to respond to that on the part of the people of Nottingham. I believe that, through the task force approach, we have already established that people will work with us and take advantage of the new ideas and resources that we can bring in order to turn round areas such as Radford, Lenton and Forest Fields, where the residents need further help to obtain skills and training so that they can get back into the economy.

Mr. Nigel Spearing,: Does the Paymaster General recall that a few minutes ago he either said or implied that the activities of urban development corporations assisted local people? Will he take it from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the activities of the London Docklands development corporation mostly disadvantage local people—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is true! Firms and people are being driven out by escalating land values and the arrogance and acquisitive instinct of the LDDC. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes to Docklands tomorrow, will he announce those features of his policy that are to the advantage of local people, and only those?

Mr. Clarke: I flatly and totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman's description of urban development corporations—

Mr. Spearing: In London.

Mr. Clarke: As I told his hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), it seems to me that he and his hon. Friends are advocating the conservation of dereliction and decay, presumably because that is the political power base of themselves and their friends. That is not the way to cure the problems of inner city London.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in much of the inner cities Labour-controlled local authorities have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution, and that one of

the great advantages of the sort of initiatives that my right hon. and learned Friend has been taking is that at last they are attracting entrepreneurs and those concerned about building up business to come back and play a full part? Unless entrepreneurs are again prepared to take a leading role in the inner cities, there is very little future for such areas.

Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, in some Labour local authority areas, although not all, the activities of the local authority do more to exacerbate the problems than to cure them. The local authority can itself be part of the problem in places such as Leicester and Southwark, as I have discovered through the task force policy during the last 12 months. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must get the private sector, voluntary bodies and local people, much more directly involved, and the task force approach has succeeded in doing that. Clearing banks are collaborating with us in some of these areas, and major firms are showing an interest and helping us by working through Business in the Community. Well-respected voluntary bodies such as NACRO and APEX are working with us, too. Where a local authority joins in, that is all to the good and speeds things up. Where a local authority refuses to and simply creates difficulties, we must find others of good will who want to do something to alleviate the problems of the inner cities.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must apply the same principle as I did on the previous statement. I shall call one more Opposition Member and we shall then have to move on.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Paymaster General aware that from now on it seems that the Government Front Bench will show a completely different attitude towards the inner cities because of the coming general election? Is he also aware that he, the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, and his sidekick, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who happens to be a member of the Nottingham city council, have been severely critical since they came to power in 1979 of what the city council was not doing? It now appears that the electorate will take notice of what has been said this afternoon and will bear it in mind in the local district elections. They will let the Government know exactly where they stand on this fiddle of money for inner cities.

Mr. Clarke: All the talk about elections has come from the Opposition, and I can only think that several hon. Members are gripped by a sense of panic about the consequences. From the hon. Gentleman's remarks I could not understand whether or not he supports the announcement of a new task force for the inner area of Nottingham. I await the reaction of his allies on Nottingham city council and Nottingham county council, but I am genuinely hopeful that they will respond and offer to approach the problems in a spirit of partnership and step up the efforts that we should make in order to improve conditions in that inner city area.

Security

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It might be helpful to the House if I state that, having noted the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and those made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I recognise that there is in the House a very general desire for a debate on security matters in Northern Ireland. I hope that that can he arranged shortly through the usual channels.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first and then take any points of order.

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Prime Minister to suppress information about the disloyal and illegal activities by the security services and hence to mislead Parliament and the public.
My request arises from the report in The Independent this
morning written by three distinguished journalists who have read the book written by Mr. Peter Wright in which he reveals:
Thirty senior staff of MI5 were engaged in a politically-motivated … plot to hound Harold Wilson from office as Prime Minister in 1974".
I quote again:
Assassination plots, burglaries and bugging of allies and enemies, are all described at first hand in the Wright manuscript.
I quote again:
Plans to assassinate President Nasser at the time of Suez … are confirmed with first-hand detail in the book.
Because of the nature of these charges, the Government have used the courts to try to silence and harass the press and journalists who brought this matter to light. It is my opinion that it is much to the credit of The Independent that it published the article. Some of the actions were directed against Members of this House, including Harold Wilson and others, some of whom are still Members of the House. The article is the first direct evidence available which discloses what is in the book which the Prime Minister has sought to suppress.
My request for a debate relates not to the case, but to the evidence that has now reached us. For many years it has been suspected that this was going on, but the Ministers responsible were either not told or knew and chose not to disclose it. In either case, a serious offence was committed. However, we know that the Prime Minister knew the book's contents because she personally Sent the Cabinet Secretary to Australia to get it suppressed. The argument that this was a breach of confidentiality was put about the real charge of illegality, disloyalty and possibly treason against Her Majesty's Government.
I conclude by stating that this is a matter of fundamental importance to the House, whose protector you are, Mr. Speaker. When you claim the privileges of the House, you ask that the most favourable construction be placed upon our proceedings, and nothing could be more

clearly covered in that category than Ministers being accountable to the House of Commons. I believe that the Wright book, coming on top of other revelations, reveals a situation within MI5 and MI6 and its relations with the Central Intelligence Agency which amount to a threat to parliamentary democracy. f submit that the House must debate the matter. I hope that you will reflect, Mr. Speaker, that as the events that will unfold as a result of the book become clearer, it would be inconceivable to observers that Parliament should not have discussed the matter at the earliest possible occasion.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Prime Minister to suppress information about disloyal activities by the security services and hence to mislead Parliament and the public.
As the House and the right hon. Gentleman know, my only duty in adjudicating upon a Standing Order No. 20 application is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not at the moment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: May I tell the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that, after the Leader of the House had risen to make his comments about a debate, I was not certain whether the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was rising to raise his Standing Order No. 20 application or to ask a question. If he was rising to ask a question, I should have called him.

Mr. Molyneaux: I would like to thank the Leader of the House on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the suggestion that he has made, which is agreeable to us. In the light of that, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall not now proceed to make application for a debate under Standing Order No. 20.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order now. However, in fairness to the House, I will take any questions to the Leader of the House on his statement about the change of business. If the point of order from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is encompassed within that, he may ask his question of the Leader of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I find myself in some difficulty. I wanted to ask you, Sir, what I do as a Member of this House when members of the security forces have planned


to discredit and assassinate me. What do I do under those circumstances? Do I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, for protection? On the other matter—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to stand up and say something, let him stand up and not remain seated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should put a question to the Leader of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My other point is that today, in the House, we heard a statement which can only lead to grave fears on behalf of many people in Northern Ireland. This House was deliberately misled by the Secretary of State. I want to say that the sooner that we have a debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. No hon. Member from either side of the House deliberately misleads this House. We are all right hon. and hon. Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Standing Order No. 20 application—Rev. William McCrea.

Mr. Dalyell: I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a question for the Leader of the House on the Northern Ireland statement?

Mr. Dalyell: My question relates to parliamentary business in relation to one of our former colleagues, Lord Glenamara, whose position is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot ask a question except on the statement that was made. I will hear the Standing Order No. 20 application.

Mr. Dalyell: It was on that business statement.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a very mundane level, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take account of the fact that there are some local elections in the fairly near future. I hope that, when determining the time and date of the debate, he will bear in mind that many English Unionists might care to take part in it. Thursday 7 May would not be an appropriate date.

Mr. Biffen: I am certain that that will be one of the factors to be considered by the usual channels.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. James Kilfedder: On the statement made by the Leader of the House, may I state that it would be my wish, and the wish of my constituents and of the people of Northern Ireland, that a debate should take place immediately. None the less, I am glad to note that the Government have acceded to the request of the Members from Northern Ireland and agreed to the debate.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order in their normal place after the Standing Order No. 20 applications.

Mr. Heffer: But it is in relation to the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Then do not raise a point of order; ask a question.

Mr. Heffer: The question is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions on this matter must be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Heffer: But you have got them mixed up, haven't you?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did get them mixed up; that is why I went back and called questions to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Heffer: Well then, let us get back to this afterwards.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it later.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it relate to the Irish statement?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, it does. As the Leader of the House made a judgment about the importance of debating the situation on Northern Ireland, is it not a matter for comparative judgment—and equally important—that we debate the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I find it remarkable that we are now asking questions of the Leader of the House, who has not replied to a single one of the questions that have been raised. It is a cock-eyed state of affairs. I want to ask him this: when he arranges the debate on Northern Ireland, will he make sure that it does not conflict with one of the many requests that will be made under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate on the scandal that emerged today in The Independent and other newspapers in relation to MI5 and all the rest of it? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I believe that it is necessary for Labour Members to expose what has taken place with these so-called spycatchers and all the rest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is wide of the question.

Mr. Ian Gow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this a question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Gow: Yes. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the forthcoming debate on Northern Ireland will be a half-day debate or a whole-day debate?

Mr. Biffen: That matter will be considered by the usual channels.

Mr. John David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not a point of order—a question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, a question to the Leader of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the lack of security in Northern Ireland will be held before the general election?

Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that the usual channels consider that observation among all others.

Rev. William McCrea: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the terrorist murders committed by the IRA in my Mid-Ulster constituency which have resulted in a civilian being buried and a UDR man brutally murdered since the House rose on Friday last.


On behalf of the family of a UDR man who live in my constituency, may I say that I am deeply hurt that the Secretary of State came to the House today and failed to say that the last person to be murdered in Ulster was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was forgotten about and not mentioned, and I believe that that was absolutely disgraceful. Indeed, the Secretary of State should apologise to the widow and the two children, who have suffered because of a dastardly and brutal murder by the sewer crawlers of the IRA.
Many hon. Members have said today that they sympathise. In all the years since the troubles started in the Province, how many Members of Parliament have been across to Ulster, taken a widow by the hand and sympathised with her and her children after another brutal murder by the IRA? There is a widow sitting in my constituency today, but not one Minister will be present to sympathise with her. I have a message from that widow to the Secretary of State. He can keep his officials from her door—she does not want to see them. She said, "He is no good to me; he is no good to my children; he is no good to the widows of the RUC men; he is no good to the widows of the UDR; he is no good to the orphans—until he stops talking and starts acting against the murderers and puts them where they belong—six feet under." Then my constituents will listen to the Secretary of State. We are looking not for words, but for action against the sewer crawlers of Republican terrorism.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the terrorist murders committed by the IRA in the Mid-Ulster constituency which have resulted in a civilian being buried and a UDR man brutally murdered since the House rose last Friday.
I have listened—[Interruption.] Order. I have listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman said on behalf of his constituents, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Later—

Mr. Heffer: I wanted to ask you something, Mr. Speaker, arising from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said. I do not challenge your ruling, but you were careful to say that you could not make a decision today for a debate tomorrow. Are you saying that if this matter—it is of the greatest importance to the future of the country that the security services should not be involved in trying to undermine an elected Government — is raised tomorrow or the day after, it will be given greater consideration than it has been given today? It is vital that the nation should debate this matter which is an undermining of our democratic way of life.

Mr. Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, all right.

Mr. Winnick: It has been reported in the press that the Attorney-General was considering taking the matter of what has appeared in The Independent to court. As you will be the first to recognise, Mr. Speaker, you are first and

foremost the custodian of parliamentary democracy and the rights of this House. If it is true, as Mr. Wright has alleged, that up to 30 MI5 officers were engaged in the worst form of treachery — the overthrow of a democratically elected Government—and were conspiring to undermine and destroy a Prime Minister, surely this must be a matter of deep concern.
If it was alleged that the general council of the TUC had been conspiring to carry out assassinations or to destroy a democratically elected Government by treachery and subversion, Conservative Members would not hestitate constantly to urge that the matter should be debated. These events did not take place 300 or 100 years ago but took place within the last 10 or 12 years. Mr. Wright has left MI5, but if it is true that these events took place and if it is true, as stated, that a number of those who conspired to commit treachery remain in MI5, is it not a matter of the utmost importance that, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have urged, this matter should be debated as quickly as possible and before the general election?

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point?

Mr. Dalyell: On the same issue. It is a direct question to you, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that, arising out of what has been written in relation to the Wright situation, we are in a new position in relation to the sub judice rule. May I ask for some guidance about how you intend to interpret the sub judice rule now that it has really been breached by a coach and four?
May I also ask whether there should be a statement about the position of the Security Commission, because there is certainly reference to the fact that the Security Commission has been impotent? Because I think that it is the business of the Chair, perhaps later today you could give a considered statement about the sub judice rule that you normally and legitimately adopt.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point?

Mr. Skinner: Yes. It is linked to what has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that here we are with the possibility of action being taken by the Attorney-General against these newspapers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has asked for a Standing Order 20 debate and that request has been refused. We are approaching a general election and it is clear that there is a cover-up of gigantic proportions. The last thing that the Chair should become involved and embroiled in is part of that gagging and cover up. I suggest, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that.

Mr. Skinner: Let me finish, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that it will be seen outside by millions of people that this Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order! I am not having that from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should raise a point of order that I can answer as a matter of order.

Mr. Skinner: What I am saying is that in this climate and in this environment millions of people will ask why on earth the House of Commons cannot discuss a most important issue that has been revealed by sections of the


the press. They will ask why we, in this so-called mother of Parliaments, this free Parliament that people talk about, cannot find ways of discussing it. All I am saying is that, if the Government are going to get the Attorney-General to stop this issue being debated, the net result will he that neither you nor anybody else will be able to ensure that this matter is discussed. All I am saying to you is to get on your bike and get it discussed quickly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. And I say to the hon. Gentleman that as the custodian of the Chair I am not prepared to be involved in political controversy.[Interruption.] This is a matter for the Government. It is not a question for the Chair. I have given my ruling about whether this matter should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow, and that is the end of it.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take Mr. Steel first.

Mr. Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chair is placed in difficulty because the Government have indicated that they are considering taking action against The Independent. This morning, before that was known, I tabled an early day motion suggesting that the current appeal that the Government intend to pursue against the judgment in Australia is itself now a waste of money. It would he extremely helpful to the Chair and to

the House if these further legal proceedings were withdrawn and the House were then able to debate the matter.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate the difficulty that you face, Mr. Speaker, in avoiding being drawn into political controversy. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes is a valid one. It is that acts of sedition are not matters of political controversy. They strike at the very core of the democratic system and you, Mr. Speaker, are the custodian of this House, the prime institution of our democratic society. Therefore, when we have clear and new evidence from people who were involved at the time that acts of sedition took place, then we on the Opposition Front Bench and our hon. Friends on the Back Benches strongly feel that this is a matter of such importance—not necessarily in a party political sense — that it deserves priority. We understand your problems, Mr. Speaker, but it is likely that we will return to this issue tomorrow and the day after and even the day after that.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House, but specifically to the Opposition Front Bench, that they have their remedy? They have an Opposition day virtually every week — [Interruption.] Order.—and it is perfectly open to the Opposition to choose this subject for debate. I find it reprehensible that an hon. Member should seek to involve the Chair in a matter that is plainly one of political controversy.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were you deflected from the answer that you were about to give me about the sub judice rule?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I am aware, no action has been set down in the English courts, and the matter is not sub judice.

Mauritian Citizens (Detention)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continued and unauthorised holding of 10 Mauritian citizens at Heathrow airport.
This is a serious matter. On 12 April, a group of 10 Mauritian citizens arrived at Heathrow airport in transit with the intention of travelling on holiday to Europe. They had valid visas for all the countries that they proposed to visit. They were stopped at the airport by security staff. They were strip-searched and handed over to the immigration service. They were then delayed sufficiently so that their onward flight to Brussels had already left, and they were then placed in detention at Heathrow. At no stage were they applying for entry to the United Kingdom, yet their passports were stamped with the words, "Refused permission to enter the United Kingdom", and the immigration service decided to deport them back to Mauritius, even though they had been booked on an onward flight to Belgium.
On Good Friday, the Mauritians' solicitor applied for a judicial review and was granted an injunction preventing their removal to Mauritius, but 15 days later they are still held at Harmondsworth detention centre. They have been refused permission to continue their holiday in Belgium, unauthorised stamps have been placed in their passports saying that they cannot he admitted to Britain—they never applied to come here — and their high commissioner, who has met Home Office and Foreign Office officials on the matter, has not received a satisfactory explanation of this serious state of affairs.
It is important for the House to debate the matter because those people are being wrongly held at the airport. No charge has been preferred against them, yet they have not been allowed to go free. It calls into question the activities and behaviour of the Home Office and the immigration service, in respect not just of this matter but of other matters. It is incumbent upon a Home Office Minister to make a statement to the House about what is happening at Heathrow airport, and it is important for the House to discuss this serious matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continued and unauthorised holding of 10 Mauritian citizens at Heathrow airport.
Again, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Westland plc (Select Committee Evidence)

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in February this year concerning share dealings in Westland. As the minutes of the proceedings make clear, on 14 May the Committee received evidence from representatives of Westland and of Lazard Brothers, its merchant bankers. At page 179, the representatives were asked whether they had any knowledge of the six mystery buyers of shares in Westland. Mr. Michael Baughan, director of Lazards, is recorded as replying: "No knowledge whatsoever."
Last week, it emerged that the Banque Dreyfus, which is one of the six mystery buyers, is a corresponding bank of Lazard Brothers. That information was not disclosed to the Select Committee, although, since the chairman of Lazard Brothers is a former Member of the House and of the Government, the bank might have been expected to know of the importance of the Select Committee and of any dealings with it.
I ask you, Mr.Speaker, to invite Ministers to note this expression of concern and to suggest to them that a full statement would be welcome, to discover whether they knew this information, when they knew it and why the information was not disclosed to the Select Committee on any of the three separate occasions when Ministers gave evidence to it.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a question of order. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, it is a matter for the Government and for the Select Committee, and I have no doubt that his comments will have been heard. Now I will take Mr. Heffer.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS,&c

Ordered,
That the draft British Nuclear Fuels plc (Financial Limit) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day — Consumer Protection Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is not as controversial as those points that were raised before, but I put it to you that essential documents relating to this debate are not available in the Vote Office. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, one of the essential parts of this Bill is to repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, an Act which was approved unanimously by the House. Hon. Members who have asked for the Second Reading Hansard of 25 February 1972 have been advised that it is out of print. It would be ridiculous if hon. Members were asked to make a judgment on whether to repeal an Act if they were not able to read the arguments about why the Act was introduced by the House in 1972.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am sure that Ministers will continue to make available such documents as are absolutely essential for an understanding of Bills. That obligation could not be to provide every Act that may be about to be repealed, because some of them go back over the centuries. I am certain that if the hon. Gentleman went to the Library he would be able to see a copy of the 1972 Act.
Before I call the Minister, may I tell the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and his hon. Friends?

5·9 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill originated in another place and was warmly welcomed there. It deals with two principal matters—consumer safety and misleading price indications. Parts I and II of the Bill are addressed to safety. The first provides new civil remedies for those injured by unsafe goods and the second concerns criminal sanctions against those who supply such goods. Part III extends the protection for consumers against misleading price indications.
Before I explain the Bill's provisions in more detail, I should like to say a few words about the Government's general approach to consumer protection policy. For most purposes, the best protection that consumers can have is that provided by fair competition in a free market. In general, that protection can best be achieved by letting business get on with the task of competing for customers, but fair competition can only be achieved in a suitable framework.
The Bill is addressed to two forms of unfair competition. Supplying unsafe goods is a form of unfair competition as it gives the supplier of unsafe goods an unfair advantage over a competitor who is prepared to incur the costs associated with ensuring that his goods are safe. It is also a particularly objectionable practice in its own right. Misleading consumers about the price that they are charged is also unfair competition. Fair competition will not be achieved if consumers are given false or misleading information on which to base the decisions that they make in the market place.
I should like to explain to the House the Bill's principal provisions. Part I provides consumers who arc injured by defective products with a new mechanism for seeking compensation. These provisions implement the European Community directive on liability for defective products.
United Kingdom law as it stands provides injured consumers with two avenues for seeking redress — the law of contract and the law of negligence—but there are deficiencies in these two routes. Under the law of contract, only the purchaser may be compensated by his immediate supplier. Under the law of negligence, compensation can be gained directly from the manufacturer only if the injured person can show that the manufacturer has been negligent. Those anomalies in our existing product liability law were addressed in reports prepared by a Royal Commission chaired by Lord Pearson and by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. All three recommended that manufacturers should be strictly liable for death or injury arising from a defect in their products, subject to certain defences.
The European Community considered the matter over a period of 10 years and in July 1985 adopted a directive requiring member states to make provisions which follow many of those recommended by the three commissions to which I referred. Accordingly, under part I of the Bill, any person who can show that he was injured as a result of a lack of safety in a product will be able to secure compensation from the manufacturer or, if appropriate, the importer into the Community. He will not have to show negligence and he need not be the purchaser. The benefit to consumers is clear. I might add that it will also assist retailers, who are liable under the law of contract, by tending to channel claims for compensation towards the manufacturer who introduced the defect.
The general purpose of the directive is harmonisation. There are three matters on which member states may derogate from its core provisions, but we intend to take up none of those derogations. First, the directive excludes liability relating to primary agricultural produce. The Government do not intend to depart from this and, to my knowledge, no other member state has proposed legislation which differs from our intentions. Secondly, the directive provides an important defence for the manufacturer if he can show that at the time of supply the general state of scientific and technical knowledge was not such as to enable the defect to be discovered. This is called the development risks defence. Member states may derogate from this provision, but in my view to do so could stifle innovation, which would be in the interests of neither industry nor consumers. Other member states in the Community agree with our view.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: If my hon. and learned Friend is referring to what is also known as the state of the art defence, can he say whether he intends to invite the Committee to restore the original wording as presented in another place, which is greatly preferred by the aerospace industry and by other high-tech industries?

Mr. Howard: I shall be coming to that, but I have not yet reached a final view. I wish to listen to the opinions expressed in the House today, as well as outside, before coming to a final conclusion about whether the original language should be restored.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my hon. and learned Friend also consider the possibility of limiting the liability under this provision? That would be a great help for many innovative and science-based industries.

Mr. Howard: I shall be coming to that almost immediately, although I fear that the help provided by such limits would be largely illusory. First, however, I should like to complete my comments on the development risks defence as the principle of that defence may still be a matter of controversy between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: There is no one on the other side.

Mr. Howard: As usual, my hon. Friend is entirely accurate in his observation, but we shall await with interest the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Apart from the German law, which applies only to pharmaceuticals and which was in existence before the directive was adopted, no member state has introduced legislation without the development risks defence in it. Even in France and Belgium, where the existing law on liability does not incorporate this defence, the courts appear to provide a development risks defence in their interpretation of the law.
I should make one further observation about development risks. The House will be aware that the Bill orginally contained a slightly different formulation of that defence—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) — and that the wording was altered as a result of an amendment in another place. Some have welcomed that amendment, but others have opposed it. I wish to hear the views of both sides of the House before reaching a final decision.
The third derogation enables us to limit a producer's total liability attaching to a particular defect—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) —to 70 million ecu, or some £40 million, but I fear that that might lead to injustices when there are many claims and to delays in awarding compensation when there is a possibility of further claims in respect of the same product while offering little real protection to most manufacturers. Having considered the matter carefully, therefore, we do not intend to set such a limit and, apart from the special German pharmaceutical law that I mentioned earlier, no other member state appears likely to impose a limit on liability.
Part II is complementary to the Bill's product liability provisions and is intended to prevent unsafe goods reaching the market in the first place. There are already regulations which make it an offence to supply certain specific types of goods if they are unsafe, but inevitably this results in some dangerous products reaching consumers because there are no regulations prohibiting their supply.
The Government announced their policy on this matter in the White Paper, "The Safety of Goods", in July 1984. We propose to tackle this problem by introducing a new general safety requirement which will make it an offence to supply any unsafe consumer goods. It will, however, be a defence to show that the goods conform to an approved safety standard or otherwise achieve the same level of safety, and we intend to approve a comprehensive regime of standards for this purpose. This will give an important boost to the role of standards, thus improving the quality

and competitiveness of British goods. Part II applies throughout the chain of supply, although there w ill be a defence for retailers who often do not have specialised knowledge about the manufacture of goods. We shall, however, broadly retain the existing regulations covering specific goods.
The White Paper also made proposals for the improved enforcement of consumer safety legislation. Those proposals were taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and now constitute the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his efforts, and that Act is consolidated in parts II and IV of the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: In consultations with industry and trade representatives about consumer safety, my hon. and learned Friend showed some sympathy with the views expressed by some retailers and, I believe. by the Retail Consortium, that a balance must be struck between retailers' and manufacturers' obligations and the need for consumers to use products correctly and not wilfully or negligently. Is he satisfied that the proposals to be introduced at a later stage will take care of that vital point?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to refer to those concerns. We have considered them carefully and are satisfied that the present language of the Bill more than adequately meets those concerns.
Part III is addressed to misleading price indications. The present legislation, which is contained in section 11 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Price Marking (Bargain Offers) Order 1979, has been widely criticised. Both provisions prohibit specific practices. This approach allows other misleading practices to slip through the net. The Trade Descriptions Act allows traders to "disclaim" certain of its requirements, and the bargain offers order is extremely complex, poorly understood and difficult to enforce. The Bill replaces those complex provisions with another general offence — giving a misleading price indication to consumers in respect of any goods, services, accommodation or facilities. The Bill also provides for a code of practice giving traders detailed guidance on this general offence. A copy of the draft code was placed in the Library on 20 November last year.
The House will no doubt wish to know what the code's legal status is to be. When the Bill was introduced in another place, compliance with the code was to be a complete defence. However, during the passage of the Bill through another place, the Retail Consortium, the National Consumer Council, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards — all those most directly concerned and now called the "Concordat"—presented an alternative package of proposals.
This package included a proposal that compliance with the code should not be a defence but that compliance or contravention should tend to establish innocence or guilt. We have consulted widely on the package, and we undertook to reflect the outcome of that consultation in the Bill. The consultation is now complete, and the opinions received indicate very considerable support for the Concordat's proposal on the status of the code. I can therefore tell the House that the Government intend to move amendments in Committee which will give the code the status that the Concordat seeks.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. and learned Friend go into that in a little more detail? I am sure that what he has just said will be widely welcomed, and not just by those representing the Concordat. Before the Committee stage, and perhaps now, could my hon. and learned Friend say whether the revised code of practice will be, for example, shorter, clearer, and briefer?

Mr. Howard: We shall be seeking to do what we can to improve the presentation of the code, and it may be that there will be some enhanced scope for that in the light of the decisions taken about the status of the code.
Part IV provides for the enforcement of parts II and III. It consolidates, with minor amendments, the relevant provisions in the current legislation. Part V amends the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. That Act is intended to ensure that safety considerations are properly taken into account before goods for use at work are supplied. The amendments will improve the working of the Act. The general duty to supply safe goods for use at work is to be extended to fairground equipment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How will it improve the practice to extend this to fairgrounds and to replacement parts of an article? Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that the Bill gives the Customs the power to stop essential replacement parts for a fairground operation that may be desperately needed to allow the machine that has been authorised and approved as safe to go ahead? Is there not at least a case for saying that replacement parts for a proven article should be exempted?

Mr. Howard: If the parts are thought to be unsafe, I should have thought that it would be in everyone's interests that they should not be available for use with all the possible dangers to which their use might lead. It is only if the parts are thought to be unsafe that the powers to which my hon. Friend refers will arise. Therefore, I fear that I cannot go along with the concern that he has expressed on that point.

Mr. Taylor: How can my hon. and learned Friend say that? What possible purpose can a replacement part he put to if it is part of a proven, approved article, other than to be put into that particular item and used again?

Mr. Howard: I understand that that is the contemplated use of the proposed replacement part, but if it comes to the Customs officer's notice that the replacement part, for some reason, might be defective or unsafe, which is the situation with which we are concerned, it is only sensible that powers should be available to ensure that that potentially defective or unsafe part is not put into use.
Finally, I come to a matter which I know is of very great concern to many hon. Members and in particular many of my hon. Friends—the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. The Act requires all imported goods, with a few exceptions, which are supplied in the United Kingdom bearing a United Kingdom name or mark to be marked with their country of origin. Early last year the European Commission renewed a challenge to the Act on the ground that, in its view, it is a measure amounting to a quantitative restriction on imports between member states, which is prohibited by article 30 of the treaty of Rome.
The challenge to the 1972 Act was the initial formal step in the procedure for infraction proceedings under article 169 of the treaty. The next step would have been the issue of a reasoned opinion by the Commission which would,

to a large extent, have committed the matter to being brought fairly rapidly before the European Court of Justice. After careful consideration of the legal position, particularly an earlier judgment by the European Court of Justice against the United Kingdom's 1981 origin marking order, the Government have reluctantly concluded that the United Kingdom could not hope successfully to defend the Act before the European Court and that no useful purpose would have been served by seeking to do so. Indeed, an unsuccessful United Kingdom defence could well have been counter-productive since the terms of an adverse judgment might well have inhibited the scope for successor arrangements. Part V of the Bill accordingly makes provision for the repeal of the 1972 Act.
Many hon. Members are, I know, concerned about the potential effect on both consumers and industry in this country of repealing the 1972 Act—as, indeed, I am. As the House knows, in the light of consultation with interested parties, we have been considering the scope—consistent with Community law — for a successor arrangement to be introduced by statutory instrument under the existing powers of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. As soon as we are able to do so we shall announce a decision. I believe that the House will recognise that it is necessary to provide the power to repeal the 1972 Act when we have an acceptable successor regime. I can assure the House, as I have made clear in the past, that it is not our intention to bring into force the repeal of the 1972 Act until such time as the question of a successor arrangement is resolved.
Whatever arrangements are made, most British manufacturers will doubtless wish to continue to draw attention to the fact that their goods are made in Britain. The repeal of the 1972 Act will not prevent that.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Will my hon. and learned Friend give the House a little more information about the successor arrangements, because some of us are a little apprehensive about them? Does he mean that that will be a new form of words that will effectively be the 1972 Act put in a slightly different way?

Mr. Howard: Unfortunately, I cannot go as far as acceding to that suggestion by my hon. Friend, because it is the substance of these matters that is looked at by the European Court, not simply the language. We shall be seeking to find not only a formula, but some substance that will protect the consumer against the danger of being misled by some misleading indication of the origin of the goods in question that we can hope successfully to defend before the European Court of Justice.
I assure my hon. Friend that one of the reasons why I am not in a position to identify this successor regime to the House is that we are determined to leave no stone unturned in our efforts to ensure that we get the most effective successor regime possible. For example, we are looking at regimes that have been adopted in other Community countries. I am determined that we shall not have any lesser degree of protection in this country than is afforded, for example, to consumers in France in relation to any similar signs of origin of goods that may be in force under French law. I am afraid that I cannot go any further than that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Do I understand that this provision in the Bill to repeal the 1972 Act can be invoked at a later stage? If that is the case, and if it is the intention


to repeal that not immediately but at some future date, how does that square with our position vis-a-vis the European Court? Presumably, if we are taken to court, we shall be saddled with the 1972 Act. Therefore, we will fall foul of the court in any case.

Mr. Howard: The prospects are that whereas the European Commission would commence infraction proceedings if there were no legislation to repeal the 1972 Act, if this measure contains a provision for the repeal of the Act, although that repeal is not activated until we have a successor regime ready to put into place, those infraction proceedings will not be commenced

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before the Minister leaves that point, will he say whether it will be Government policy to proceed with prosecutions under the 1972 Act?

Mr. Howard: That is a matter for trading standards officers, who are the responsible authorities for prosecutions under the provisions of the 1972 Act.
I am sure that the House will agree that the Bill offers real gains for consumers and responsible businesses. Both will benefit from the more effective operation of the market mechanism. Supplying unsafe goods and giving misleading price indications are clearly harmful to consumers. They are also a way of gaining an unfair competitive advantage over honest business. The Bill will do much to prevent both mischiefs.

Mr. Alan Williams: I welcome any addition to consumer protection law, whatever its source. Over the years there has been a fairly good consensus approach on legislation such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was initiated by one party and taken up, modified and implemented by another.
We are in agreement with much of what the Minister has said. The Bill is a step forward, but when we look at the detail we see that it is a smaller step than we had originally hoped for when we saw it in the Queen's Speech at the start of this Session. For example, the Bill purports to protect consumers but, according to the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council, it would fail to provide compensation for consumers in the event of another thalidomide tragedy. Inevitably, it will be seen by the general public as a mouse of a Bill and as having failed to deal with one of the most important cases that has arisen with regard to consumer interest and the interests of industry for many years.
The Bill is based on a European directive and is therefore the basis of legislation which is being enacted in various Common Market countries. However, it gives the British consumer — as I hope to demonstrate — less protection than the French or West German Governments have felt appropriate to give to their citizens. For that reason we shall be seeking to move various amendments in Committee, as no doubt the Minister would expect.
I notice that there is a money resolution on the Order Paper. I was very disappointed, when looking at the explanatory memorandum, to see that there are not expected to he any implications for public expenditure or public service manpower. If that is so, I wonder what the Bill is all about and what value it will be to the consumer.
However, if no further resources are forthcoming to meet the wider responsibilities, the quality of existing

consumer protection will fall as the resources are spread more thinly over a wider range. Consumer organisations, and trading standards officers in particular, have pointed out that the present consumer safety legislation has not met the objectives that we all want. Various Governments have introduced measures to improve consumer safety. We have nibbled at the issue and that is why I welcome the approach of a general requirement for safety. Under the present legislation as few as 30 categories of goods are covered, but the safety requirement is being extended to the whole sector of the supply of goods. The Minister is saying that he will carry out this enormous extension without any extra manpower or financial resources, so one is a little puzzled as to what that extension will be worth.
The same applies to the misleading prices issue, with which I shall deal in more detail a little later. We all go into shops and look at newspapers and adverts which mention bargain and special offers. A whole industry is misleading the public in terms of the marketing of goods. I hope that that will at last be dealt with, but I recognise the problems that are involved.
In addition to that wider responsibility for safety there will, we hope, be an effective framework for the control of misleading marketing practices. How will we implement the intentions, as opposed to legislating for them, if our trading standards officers are to have no extra resources of manpower or money? It seems that there is more of a declaration of pious hope about extending consumer protection than a likelihood of delivery. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to address the House before I reach my winding-up speech. Perhaps on that occasion, if not now, he would be good enough to tell the House the extent to which he thinks that additional resources are appropriate and the proposals of the Labour party on that issue. I am sure that that will interest my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he is trying to identify how much the Labour party's programme would cost.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a rather petty debating point which is of no great profundity. I am making an objective analysis of a rather poor and pathetic Bill: it is not my fault that it lays itself open to criticism.
As to the provision of resources, I point out to the Minister that as consumer Minister in 1974 I set up, for the first time, a national network of consumer advice centres, provided resources for them and made sure that the local authorities were able to sustain them throughout the period of the Labour Government. Sadly, as soon as this Administration came to office they set about withdrawing funding, which led to the closure of nearly all the consumer protection centres.
In Committee we shall explain what we need to explain. We are discussing the adequacies and inadequacies of the Bill. By making a minor debating point the Minister does not escape the fact, which I have already put forward, that the Bill imposes enormous additional responsibilities on the consumer protection machinery, which is already creaking because it has been starved of resources since the Government came to office. It is expected to carry out all these extra responsibilities with no extra manpower or resources. It is up to the Minister to defend the penny-pinching attitude of this Administration. Equally, it is for


me to demonstrate that that is the attitude of this Administration. In Committee we shall deal with this and many other points.
The Bill waters down the proposals that the EC has put forward. Let us take the fairly basic sector of food and agricultural products. Nothing is more fundamental in terms of the interests of the consumer than foodstuffs. It matters to us as individuals and it matters even more to our children that the quality of our foodstuffs should be protected by consumer legislation. Yet it seems that the Government have made a significant change in the rules affecting foodstuffs. The rules in the EC directive exclude agricultural produce that has not undergone "initial processing", but those words do not appear in the Bill. The Government have adopted a different formula from that applied in the rest of the European Community. Under the Bill, there is an exclusion for agricultural produce that has not undergone industrial processing and even that phrase is qualified by a reference to the essential characteristics of the product being affected. I do not pretend to know what that means and nothing in the Bill tells us what it means. However, I know that it does not mean initial processing and that it is a major departure from the directive's intentions.
As there is no definition of industrial processing in the Bill and as the Minister in another place failed to satisfy their Lordships, I hope that the Under-Secretary will clarify the matter, because it puzzles us all. What is foodstuff that has not undergone industrial processing which has affected the essential characteristics of the product?
I assume that the Bill will exclude the chemical spraying of foodstuffs. Lettuce has a high absorption rate and sustains many of the chemicals sprayed on it. Will such spraying be covered by the Bill? Would it be covered by the directive? We do not know, and we should like to know.
What about the injection of cattle with steroids and antibiotics? Is that "initial processing"? It certainly does not seem to be "industrial processing". Again, we do not know, and the public are entitled to know. Are additives an industrial process? Are preservatives, colourings and flavour enhancers covered by the Bill? Would they be covered by the directive? We need clarification of such matters.
The National Consumer Council believes that the Government have deliberately created a loophole to appease the agriculture lobby and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has sabotaged consumer protection legislation. It says:
We are adamantly opposed to the Government's extension of this loophole. There is real and widespread public concern at the use of chemical treatments to make foodstuffs look nicer, last longer and taste better. While the Directive leaves liability for such treatments to the court, the Bill expressly states that there should be no compensation under the product liability laws.
The intentions of the directive are much wider than those of the Bill.
Product liability will be closely investigated in Committee, because there is great anxiety about the subject. The House welcomes the introduction of product liability. It has been a decade in coming, but I recognize

the problems that have had to be overcome. However, we have moved a long way from the Pearson report which stated unequivocally:
to exclude development risks from a regime of strict liability would be to leave a gap in the compensation cover, through which, for example, the victims of another thalidomide disaster might easily slip.
The Pearson commission was asked to look at the issue, and it heard all the evidence before stating clearly that the defence that the Government intend to allow should not be permitted. It might be said that the commission's judgments were perverse; we can all remember committees coming up with unexpected or unbalanced judgments. However, not only the Pearson commission, but the Law Commissions for Scotland and for England and Wales, the Bar Council and the Law Society have all come down against the defence that the Government are building into the Bill.
The National Consumer Council observes that no similar defence is available under French or West German laws. The Minister said that the courts had interpreted the law in France. The French legislature made a decision and the courts interpreted it. The day that a Minister of the Crown comes to the House and tells me that a French judge should determine how a British Government should legislate will be the day I question whether that man is fit to be a Minister. Therefore, I assume that that was not really the point that the Under-Secretary was making.

Mr. Howard: It is not the point that I was making, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not. However, it affects the extent to which he is able to rely on the law of France as a precedent. That is all.

Mr. Williams: The Governments of France and West Germany passed laws that they wanted to be implemented. The courts have given their interpretation, as our courts would be able to do. The Under-Secretary has said that he would be willing to start from the weakest possible position.
There is great worry on the Conservative Back Benches about one proposal in the Bill, on which the Under-Secretary says, "Because a court on the continent has interpreted the matter in a certain way, we shall not get caught in that trap, but will capitulate at the outset." The hon. and learned Gentleman says that adjudications that he admits differ from the intentions of the French Government should have an influence on the way in which we legislate for the protection of our consumers. I do not accept that view.
The NCC is a body of considerable authority, and it says that because a defence that is not available in France or West Germany will be permitted in this country, and because there are tighter rules about pharmaceuticals in the United States, we could become a testing ground for new drugs. I do not wish to contemplate such a risk.
Of course, consumer groups will argue for the widest protection. That is their job, and our job is to ensure that their views and arguments are fully considered. I recently met representatives of the Association of British Insurers, because consumer groups argued that it might be costly to have full product liability, but that the costs were insurable, and that the insurance premium could be added to the price paid by consumers.
I asked the Association of British Insurers for its views—I know that it has now submitted a brief to Members—following the lunch—rather the meeting—I had with


it on 10 March.[Interruption.] The association members enjoyed the lunch, but I enjoyed their company—I have a waistline problem. However, I must say that a very good mineral water was served. I asked the association to inquire of its member companies and the letter I received states:
The enclosed note explains the general view on product liability taken by insurance companies. This is that they are, by and large, confident that they will be able to provide cover for liabilities under the new legislation for current limits of indemnity at premium levels which will have only a marginal effect on the cost of production".
In fairness, that is not what the association had been asked to address. The question was not what would happen under the present legislation, but what would happen if that legislation were amended in the form that was suggested. Thus, my objectivity is unchallengeable.

Mr. Howard: indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: I am glad that the Minister appreciates that. The letter continued:
There could, however, be a reduction in the amount of insurance capacity"—
the association did not say there would be non-availability —
if the state-of-the-art defence were not included. This would particularly affect industries, such as pharmaceuticals and aerospace, which present a heavy development risk exposure.
Therefore, the insurance companies are not saying that that risk could not be covered, but they are saying that there may be some limit on the extent of cover.

Mr. Howard: That is the same thing.

Mr. Williams: It is not the same thing. For a company to say that it is willing to insure, even if that insurance is more limited than under the present proposals, is different from saying that the company cannot insure. I am sure that the Minister will admit that. What is available is insurance cover under either scheme, but the insurance companies admit that they would want some type of ceiling on the level of commitment.
If that is the case—I believe that we wish to obtain the best piece of legislation that we can for the consumer—we shall need to explore a series of amendments in Committee. We should have a genuine exploration of those amendments in Committee and get answers from the Government. We shall also seek advice from the various organisations concerned regarding the options. We shall certainly move an amendment on strict liability with insurance. We shall judge that matter in the light of the arguments that are put forward and consider whether we should adopt the New Zealand system. In that country there is a type of state system operating as back-up for compensation. We should consider the merits of that system. I am not sure whether it would work here, but we should consider whether there is anything in it that we can use to the advantage of British consumers.
In Committee we should also consider the precise wording of the defence. We shall need to consider such matters in detail. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that they are important issues and they are not easy to decide upon. I do not consider this a simple black and white issue. There are important arguements on both sides and we must have them rehearsed. However, I do not want to hear the nonsensical argument that it has become so expensive to obtain insurance in America that that means that Britain will follow the same route. I believe that that

argument was put forward earlier by certain sectors of the industry, but it has now been thoroughly discredited and we do not hear it so often.
The American system is utterly different from ours. In the United States juries award damages that are often astronomical. In Britain awards are made by judges. I am sure that other hon. Members have dealt with constituents' cases and have shared their anguish when they obtain derisory damages for the death or maiming of a child. In this country damages are judged on the loss of earning power rather than on emotive issues. Therefore, damages in Britain tend to be far smaller than in the United States. In the United States there is a rather peculiar practice—no doubt the United States would be called the -market society" known as the contingent fee system. Under that system solicitors run around offering to take on cases at no cost to the person who is pursuing that case. Instead, the solicitors take a percentage of the spoils. There is a more litigious attitude in the United States than in Britain. Thus, the United States experience in terms of the cost of product liability has little relevance to Britain.
On the question of safety, I intimated earlier that we welcomed the introduction of the general duty. I believe that safety is a more important consideration than value for money. Value for money and misleading prices are important, but safety is the paramount consideration. However, I wish to return to the point that we debated virtually a year ago, but which is encapsulated in the legislation before us and in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986. The Government, through their amendments to that Act—incorporated in the legislation we are discussing today — made it more difficult for consumer protection departments and trading standards officers to give the safety protection that the public need.
The Government insisted that trading standards officers should have only 48 hours in which to carry out their initial investigations of goods. If I remember correctly, the Minister was defeated on that issue in Committee by 11 votes to 2. He did not convince anyone—only his Private Parliamentary Secretary dared to vote with him. The PPS did not look happy at the time and I am sure he made a mistake at that time. The Minister's arguments were destroyed in Committee. The Committee asked that, instead of 48 hours, 72 hours should he given. It was pointed out that something might happen late on a Friday evening, and that the 48 hours would have expired by the Monday morning. The Committee asked the Minister to be more generous and make that limit 72 hours. In fact, the limit of 72 hours was in the Bill, but the Minister came along and amended it to 48 hours. The Minister's argument to amend the limit to 48 hours will appeal to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The Minister's argument fits in with what I was saying about the Minister's attitude to what goes on on the continent. In Committee the Minister said:
we are are prepared to increase this period"—
the period in which it is decided whether goods are safe or unsafe—
to 72 hours, primarily for the reason that that extension would be vulnerable to criticism as imposing an unnecessary restraint on trade and might imperil the legislation at the hands of enforcement authorities in the European Community before the European Court of Justice.
Therefore, extending the inspection period from 48 hours to 72 hours would upset all those nice people in Brussels


However, the Minister could not tell us from where he had obtained that judgment, nor quote a document stating that that would happen.
The Minister then decided that perhaps that argument was not the most persuasive. The other reason that he gave for not extending the limit to 72 hours was:
a longer period could lead to undesirable blockages and overcrowding in busy ports"—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 April 1986; c. 12.]
I recall saying to the Minister that he was suggesting that, in addition to butter mountains, we would have teddy bear mountains at the ports of the United Kingdom.
The Minister's arguments were too preposterous to be contemplated, either from the point of view held by the hon. Member for Southend, East and his colleagues or from the aspects that I have discussed. The Minister is sustaining legislation that makes it more difficult for trading standards officers to carry out their proper duties to check the safety of goods.
In Committee we shall also want to discuss second-hand goods. One cannot expect the same standard from secondhand goods as from new goods. That would be illogical, but some consumer organisations have suggested amendments which they think are suitable. Those with the lowest incomes use the second-hand market and they are least able to protect themselves. I think of cases brought to my surgery of people asking for assistance in obtaining kitchen equipment. The Department of Health and Social Security will provide enough money to buy a second-hand stove, but a restored electrical or gas appliance can be unsafe. I know of at least three instances of people who have bought such equipment and found it unsafe or inoperable. In the House of Lords the Minister said that specific regulations could be used to deal with second-hand goods.
That is a slow and laborious way of providing consumer protection. The Department might have streamlined the system but at one time 102 steps had to be taken before an order became law. The system is not convincing. It is even less convincing when one bears in mind that many months ago the Minister promised that he would introduce legislation to cover second-hand gas ovens. I understand from consumer organisations that such legislation has not materialised. All that we have had is the promise.
I can understand the Government's difficulties in relation to misleading prices and the John Methuen case way back in 1975. The Government's attempts were disastrous and had to be lost in the system because the orders were impossible to implement. I am glad that the Minister has at least been willing to take advice on the format. He has explained his intentions this afternoon and we shall examine them constructively in Committee.
We shall also wish to examine protection for the pharmacist — I do not refer to the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmacists have requested a requirement that the name of the manufacturer should appear on a product so that the people against whom claims should be made are known clearly to the public. We shall examine that suggestion in Committee.
My final argument concerns the amendment that is not to be discussed and the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. I note the helpful and clear amendment tabled by Conservative Members. They are doing their best to

guide the Minister along the correct path. However, I have served on Committees with the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and I know how difficult he is to help. The Minister's argument is that we cannot keep the protection under the Trade Descriptions Act requiring that the country of origin be shown because eventually we might lose in Europe. I cannot imagine a French Minister taking that attitude. I cannot imagine a French Minister saying, "We might lose in the end so we will not fight." A French Minister protecting French rights would say, "We will fight until we have gone through the whole system." All that we have heard from the Minister today is his assessment that an unsuccessful defence might prejudice the proposed replacement regime. I find that a little strange. The Minister is saying that we shall pass the legislation and repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, that we shall not implement the legislation but start negotiations with Europe. I do not find that impressive and I do not think that anybody will be convinced that the Minister is serious.
The Minister is saying that of course he will put something in place of the Act but that he does not know what it will be. It is not as though we are talking of something new. The matter did not come before him last week or the week before. I have letters from the Minister written last year in which he says that the Government intend to put something in place of the Act. Today he tells us that he intends to do something but that he does not know what or when or whether it will be effective.
The Minister was unable to answer when asked what would happen in the meantime, what the trading standards officers would do and whether any cases would be considered. If we approve the Bill it will be the law in theory because the repeals will not have been implemented. The Minister says that everything will be up to the trading standards officers and that they must decide whether to take action in the intervening period. How unconvincing can a Minister be? This is an arch example of passing the buck.
By the time that the Bill reaches Committee we expect to have clear explanations from the Minister of how he intends to replace the Act and with what. His attitude to the Commission has been submissive. He seems to be the Government's political football. He has been kicked around Japan and now he is being kicked around the Commission.
We shall not oppose the legislation because we think that some extra protection is better than no protection. The Bill itself is almost an abuse under the Trade Descriptions Act in that it is far less than it was purported to be when it was first politically marketed by the Government last October.

Mr. Charles Morrison: As I view the acres of empty Benches behind the Opposition spokesman, I find it not surprising that the Labour party does not intend to oppose the legislation.
I shall he brief and refer to part I of the Bill which I am sure will reassure the Minister. As I staggered to my feet, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister might have felt burdened with the thought of opposition from this quarter, but I want to assure him that in principle I am in favour of consumer protection. Also, because we are members of the European Community, which I strongly support in principle — I emphasise the words "in


principle" — I am in favour of harmonisation. The greater the common ground in terms of economic and related law the better it is for the internal smooth running of the Community and for the Community's external attitudes to other countries. However, these general principles assume that European Community directives are always drawn up to the greatest common advantage. I am not convinced that it is to the greatest common advantage for part I of the Bill to be drawn as it is.
It looks to me as if those in the Commission who were responsible for part I drew it up for the benefit of lawyers. It looks as if it has been drawn up by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. Within the concept of consumer protection, I am in favour of manufacturers being responsible for the safety and reliability of their products. Nevertheless, there is a limit. The idea, mooted by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, of liability up to a maximum of £70 million is not much consolation for a great many manufacturers.
I am the parliamentary representative of the British Scrap Federation. [Laughter.] It is very important. After all, scrap metal provides most of the raw materials for the steel industry, among other industries. It is the considered view of the legal advisers of the federation that members of the federation will be affected by the passing into law of the Bill's provisions on product liability. How far members will be affected is difficult to say because so much of part I of the Bill is couched in such vague terms that the interpretation of those terms will depend upon the construction put upon them by the courts.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that the Bill maps out two ways in which someone may be liable for damage caused by a defective product. The first relates to the originator of the product and the second to intermediaries. The second, presumably, is designed so that where products are sold to consumers by retailers who could not be said to have produced the product, the person damaged is still protected. That is not unreasonable. But it seems that members of the British Scrap Federation could be liable in many cases under clause 2(2)(a), which refers to the producers. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows well, a producer is defined in clause 1 as the person who manufactured the product, or
in the case of a substance which has not been manufactured but has been won or abstracted, the person who won or abstracted it",
or, where the product bears an essential characteristic
attributable to an industrial or other process having been carried out … the person who carried out that process".
However remotely connected, that person could be the scrap metal merchant who sells the original metal, which goes through several manufacturing processes before ultimately it may be discovered that there is a defect. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Minister making a face at that proposition. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Bill or of the European Community directive that such liability should exist, but, unless the matter is clarified in the legislation, the potential for lengthy and expensive litigation is enormous and the extra insurance costs for scrap metal dealers, among others put in a similar position, could be large.
I know that, rightly, it is the Government's strong desire to strengthen the service industries, but such a provision would be carrying that intention a little too far.

Therefore, I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me when he winds up the debate.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I welcome the Second Reading of the Bill. The current law is inadequate in several areas, many of which are addressed in the Bill.
With regard to product liability, at present the buyer alone is protected, not the consumer, if he does not happen to be the buyer or necessarily the victim of the product. Currently product liability relates directly only to the seller or the middle man and provides for compensation from the producer of the goods only if he can be proved to be negligent. At present, remedies are available only through common law redress and depend on finding fault in the product.
On consumer safety, at present there are serious doubts, especially in the ability of enforcement authorities to stop the supply and sale of unsafe goods. The misleading price legislation has been described as obscure and full of loopholes, so there is much to be done. Consumers' rights need to be strengthened considerably. The Bill addresses many of the problems.
There is general agreement that liability for defective products should he much stricter—that is, without proof of fault and not based on negligence. Of course, liability should include not only the manufacturer, but the importers and suppliers of own brand goods. However, there is room for further debate on some of the issues where individual states in the EEC are allowed to derogate. The most notable is the state of the art issue. Producers should not be liable for a defect if it could not originally have been foreseen because of the state of technology and scientific knowledge at the time of manufacture. The debate is focusing on the conflict of interest between victims and producers, or, to put it another way, between big business and the individual.
There are limited circumstances in which innocent victims of unforeseen disasters will remain uncompensated, and they will occur from time to time. Victims, such as those of thalidomide, which has been mentioned, will face the same lengthy delay of years, sometimes running into decades, the same complexities and the same legal wrangles that the Bill purports to avoid.
Companies argue that to exclude that clause would raise insurance costs and inhibit innovation. Thus, potential customers as well as businesses would lose out. So we are faced with the choice: do we stifle innovation or leave a huge gap in compensation cover? But there is no clear evidence that insurance costs will soar, as has been predicted. It is clear that in the United States, where juries are notorious for their compensatory awards, the problem is different. Parallels cannot be drawn with the situation here.
Insurers in this country agree that insurance at a modest level would cover that liability. It would seem sensible to consider obliging potential defendants to take out product liability insurance. Surely the cost of insuring against a defective product, ultimately and inevitably paid for by the buyers of the product, is a better way to deal with product defects than individual victims having to remain uncompensated. With major catastrophes of an unforeseen nature, such as thalidomide, surely the state


should assume some responsibility for excess risk, as happens in New Zealand, so that injured parties receive speedy and humane redress.
I return to the development risks defence. As has been said, France, Belgium and Luxembourg do not allow that defence, and Germany does not propose to permit its use in the pharmaceutical industry. Surely we should consider similar action, if not across the board, at least for the vital pharmaceutical area. In the event of the clause being retained, I am anxious about the possibility of the phrasing being diluted from "every conceivable effort" to "all reasonable efforts". The two are quite different and that could be a relatively meaningless phrase.
Another related area is the loophole that is currently provided by the insolvency laws. There is evidence that separate companies have been set up to undertake the manufacture or construction of discrete products so that, in the event of a defect arising, liability can be avoided by winding up the company concerned. That loophole must be closed and that practice must be stopped.
Another area needing further consideration is the exemption of primary agricultural products. Again, this leads to anomalies in the system and leaves potential victims entirely unprotected. I accept the difficulties involved in assessing the effect of hidden environmental factors that are beyond the scope of the producer. I accept also the difficulties in detecting the source of the problem. However, that would leave redress for the victims only under the existing laws of negligence. In this day and age, there are major concerns about pesticides, hormones, and the like in agricultural use. Responsibility must be taken for such usage.
We should derogate from the directive on that count, with the same assumption of state responsibility for cases such as thalidomide, in the event of a major environmental problem.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Lady speaking for her party in her splendid and astonishingly forward-looking statement or for herself?

Mrs. Barnes: I am speaking for myself. However, the hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I am also reflecting my party's views.
Part II of the Bill clearly gives far greater protection to consumers—the onus to ensure safety will be put on suppliers—and consumers will not be reliant solely on enforcement officers stepping in. However, the exclusion from this section of second-hand goods causes some anxiety, and protection must be afforded in that area. Similar concern arises over the exclusion of goods for export. Surely there should be the same safety requirements for people in this country as appertain for those in other countries. Such a dual standard is quite unacceptable.
Finally, I would welcome the commitment to accept the Concordat on the review of the complexities involved in the misleading pricing legislation which would cause great confusion in its current form.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In complete good faith, and on the basis of the information then available, you gave a ruling just after Question Time, in answer to my question about the Attorney-General's role in the publication in a national

newspaper, that as that had not been referred to the English courts, there was, therefore, no question of sub judice. It may be that events unknown to you have taken place that would cause you to alter that answer.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this debate. However, since the matter has been raised, it is true that when I ruled earlier I was not aware that the Attorney-General had taken steps to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against The Independent and, I understand, other newspapers. In those circumstances, I must regard the issues raised by the action as being sub judice.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you said in reply to my point of order earlier that the matter was being considered by the Attorney-General, surely what you have just stated would not stop hon. Members raising the matter at the appropriate occasion, be it tomorrow or any other time, during Question Time because you have previously ruled that, since the matter is being pursued in Australia, the allegations made by Mr. Wright can be raised on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I hope that the fact that the Attorney-General is taking the matter to the courts, because of what has appeared in The Independent and in one or two other newspapers, will not stop that matter being raised as, indeed, it was raised prior to what appeared in The Independent today.

Mr. Speaker: Previously, action was in the Australian courts. However, it is quite plain that, so far as The Independent and other newspapers are concerned, action is in the English courts. In that case, it would be sub judice.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the second Adjournment debate for which I applied to your office is, therefore, out of order?

Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment because we have not got near a second Adjournment debate.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask you not to give a ruling now, but to consider it by tomorrow? I realise that everyone has been taken a little by surprise by events. Would you mind clarifying the ruling that you have just given to my hon. Friends by tomorrow because clearly we need to know the extent to which the issue is sub judice? There must be aspects that we can still raise. I have forgotten the precise term that you used, Mr. Speaker, but, so far as we are concerned, it is the area of precise action that will be limited. There must be areas of discussion in relation to the Wright case that are not covered by the ruling that you have just given. It would be helpful if, by tomorrow, you could clarify that.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly have to consider that. However, I advise the right hon. Gentleman that if, for instance, the Opposition were to change the subject of their Opposition day tomorrow to include such a debate, I should clearly have to look carefully at the issues that could be raised in it.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) that the warmth of my congratulations to her owes little to the fact that I have


a brother and a sister-in-law who hope to fight at her side as SDP candidates in the forthcoming general election. On many occasions, the hon. Lady has shown that she is a persuasive speaker. Clearly, she is a charming speaker who, this afternoon, has also shown that she is prepared, at times, to take an independent line from that of her party.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Lady will realise that if one reads a speech word for word one tends to lose the interest of the House, unless one allows an intervention by another hon. Member?

Sir Philip Goodhart: As I was saying, clearly the hon. Lady is a persuasive speaker or she would not have persuaded so many people at the recent by-election to change their voting pattern.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the speech made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) was one of the best SDP speeches that we have heard for a long time and will he disregard the caddish comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who should be ashamed of himself?

Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Lady's speech showed a considerable independence of thought. I agree that it is customary on such occasions to say that one looks forward to hearing the hon. Member addressing the House often in the future. However, on this occasion, one cannot make that customary reference to a maiden speech because it would he inviting Conservative—

Sir Raymond Gower: It was not a maiden speech.

Mr. Rob Hayward: The previous speech obviously made a great impact on my hon. Friend.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I was under the impression that it was the hon. Lady's maiden speech. However, for the sake of charity and chivalry, I shall not withdraw any of the remarks that I have made.
The hon. Lady quoted extensively from a brief that many hon. Members received from the Consumers Association. I agree with a great deal of the contents of that brief, not surprisingly, as I have been a member of the council of the Consumers Association for many years and am now a vice-president of it. I am delighted to extend a warm welcome to the Bill, but the association has two reservations about part I, both of which have already been touched on. I shall return to them, although I take a rather different attitude from that of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
The association's first criticism relates to clause 2(4) and the proposed exemption of unprocessed agricultural products, including game. Naturally, food is important and Lord Denning has recently reminded us that the whole legal concept of making manufacturers liable for negligence in sending out defective products stems from the famous ginger beer bottle case of 1932. My hon. and learned Friend who introduced the Bill on Second Reading with his customary lucidity was not a ginger beer consumer in 1932 and, indeed, he was not alive then, but I was both alive and a ginger beer consumer at that time. Fortunately, the ginger beer I drank in those days was uncontaminated, but an unfortunate woman purchased a bottle of ginger beer in which she found a snail and, being a sensitive female, seeing the snail in the bottle made her ill and she sued. The House of Lords changed the law on

negligence, which allowed her claim to succeed, and the idea of tort and negligence stems from that case. Until then manufacturers were not liable for their negligence.
Today no one would argue in favour of allowing manufacturers to let snails crawl into ginger beer bottles, but do we want to extend liability so that anyone who sells a fresh apple in which half a worm appears also becomes subject to the full weight of product liability? My friends in the association say that it will be a
curious anomaly that consumers—in the most literal sense—of some kinds of food, are offered less protection or redress than others.
That may be so, but the whole world of consumer protection is bound to be full of anomalies and its seems perfectly acceptable that people who buy fresh apples must expect at times to find that they have also bought a worm, and that people who choose to eat pheasant should occasionally find a shotgun pellet in their food.
I am also somewhat doubtful about the association's objections to what has become known as the development risk defence in clause 4(1).

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Surely my hon. Friend accepts that if people die as a consequence of eating apples which have been produced by a particular agricultural technique, the same product liability should apply as applies to pharmaceutical products? It is not a question of finding worms or shotgun pellets. If people die or contract serious diseases because of techniques of agricultural production which do not involve doing anything to the produce after it has been grown, surely the same liability should apply as applies to every other industry in Britain.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I would have thought that the use of poisonous insecticides, which is what my hon. Friend has in mind, was covered by legislation other than the Bill and that without the adoption of product liability as enshrined in part I of the Bill consumers would have ample recourse to damages in the courts. I do not believe that the use of poisonous insecticides will be affected in any way by the Bill. Obviously, that is a matter for the courts to decide.
To return to clause 4(1), as has already been explained, broadly speaking, this defence says that a producer shall not be liable as a result of the legislation if he proves that the state of scientific and technical change at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered. Clearly, this has particular relevance to the pharmaceutical industry and the Consumers Association states that
it provides a gap in the law which might leave future victims of Thalidomide-type disaster without adequate compensation.
There is already a great deal of legislation that relates to the safety of medicines and the testing of new pharmaceutical products before they become available to doctors and patients. Meanwhile we must balance the possible risks to the consumer of a medicine which does damage against the risk that an effective, life-saving or pain-reducing drug will not be produced because the company thinks that the financial risks are too great.
It is perhaps worth noting that when the Bill received its Second Reading in another place Lord Denning spoke strongly against allowing the development risk provision and was in favour of amending clause 4. When the Committee stage had been reached he had changed his mind, largely because of a report in a newspaper about the development of an anti-AIDS drug by the Wellcome


Foundation. The main research laboratory of the Wellcome Foundation happens to be in my constituency. Indeed, by Committee stage Lord Denning was arguing that the Wellcome Foundation should be able to develop that drug, to experiment with it and to test it without being liable to any patient who happened to have unforeseen side effects.
These days a lot of official spokesmen spend a great deal of time and money warning us about the danger of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, in particular Dr. Koop, the American Surgeon-General, who keeps telling us that this disease could become the modern equivalent of the black death and could kill tens of millions of people before the end of this century. Even if we think that Dr. Koop is overreacting, do we really want to put more legal and financial inhibitions on people who are trying to develop a cure or a vaccine for this disease?
I do not think that we can give any blanket exemption of liability to those who are involved in trying to find a cure for AIDS. After all, the number of people who die from AIDS is a tiny fraction of those who die from cancer or who suffer from arthritis. The AIDS argument, certainly for the pharmaceutical industry, has tipped the balance against those who wish to do away with the development risk defence.
When I last visited the Wellcome research laboratory in my constituency I was told, both informally and formally, that abolition of the development risk defence would be a considerable cause for concern. There can be no doubt that this view is shared by the British pharmaceutical industry. That industry has earned a great deal of money for this country in the past 20 years and has done an enormous amount to combat pain and ill health. Therefore, I hope that the Government will continue to oppose this attempt to amend clause 4. I am in favour of going back to the original wording of clause 4 in Committee.
I was slightly alarmed to hear how many issues the right hon. Member for Swansea, West intends to raise in Committee. We would have to be monks not to realise that a general election may be called in the next few weeks. This will put the whole future of the Bill at risk. I hope that, through consultation, we could reach some form of self-denying ordinance so that the Committee stage of the Bill is truncated and there is very little, if any, amendment to it. There would then be some chance of the Bill reaching the statute book, even if the general election is called in June.
This is a good Bill, even without amendment, and I would like to see it on the statute book along with the other important consumer protection legislation that the Government have introduced.

Mr. Richard Page: I welcome the Bill and I will be supporting it this evening. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) will not mind if I do not respond as fulsomely to his speech as he did to that of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I simply echo his hope that, in the event of a general election, some deal can be worked out so that parts, if not all, of this Bill can reach the statute book and be put into operation.
I was also very pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was not wedded to the amendment to clause 4(1) that was moved in another place. Because of those words of hope, I will focus my few words on trying to persuade him to change his mind, to remove the amendment and to reintroduce the state-of-the-art defence as it was understood when it was introduced back in December in another place. As the Bill is presently constructed, it refers — dare I say it, somewhat simplistically — to the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time not being such as to enable the existence of the defect being discovered. No account is taken of the accessibility of the knowledge or the feasibility of its application. It is open to a number of interpretations and puts the development risk defence in jeopardy.
I will speak in favour of the state-of-the-art defence, for two reasons—one for the consumer and one for the producer. The consumer will suffer because he will be faced with vastly increased costs. The insurance bills will be very much larger than originally anticipated. In another place Lord Williams had a fairly laid-back approach to costs when he said that consumers would be quite willing to pay extra for extra protection. I do not know what experience the noble Lord has with consumers, but my experience is that consumers are exceedingly reluctant to pay any extra money. If a consumer has two similar articles placed in front of him at different prices, he will choose the cheaper.
In this measure we are also looking to remove the markings of origin, which will make it much harder to say that an article is made in Britain or that it is covered by the protection of insurance. The hon. Member for Greenwich spoke about modest costs. That is a red herring. I do not believe that the costs are going to be moderate; I believe that they will be extremely heavy. I do not wish to upset the insurance companies, but they are nothing more than high-grade bookmakers. When one takes one's few shillings and puts them on one's selection for the Derby, one hopes that it will win. One puts one's money on with an insurance company hoping that one will not lose—hoping that one will not get pestilence, flood or theft. If one does lose, one hopes that the insurance company will pay out.
However, insurance companies are commercial organisations, not charities. They expect a reasonable profit margin. If there is an unestimable risk on a new product, they will cover themselves accordingly. Therefore, if this state-of-the-art defence is removed, insurance costs will be much higher.
I will give one or two examples. Some hon. Members, obviously not I, will remember the days when electrical wiring was covered in rubber and a canvas sheath. Somebody had the bright idea of producing a plastic covering. Can hon. Members imagine the manufacturer telling the insurance company that he had this new idea for wiring and asking for cover? The insurance company would think how many tens and hundreds of thousands of houses and how many factories, hospitals and shops that wire would be installed in, and, if there was a defect, how much the incipient liability or cost would be. Insurance companies would charge an astronomical premium or say, "Just do a few houses in a trial area to see how it works. Let us see what it will be like after a few years."
Can anyone see our foreign competition, particularly in the far east, saying that they could not touch a product for


a couple of years because we were doing trials? Our competitors would be taking our ideas as quickly as possible. In fact, the Japanese do not even impose strict liability for ordinary design defects, as this Bill does. The exclusion of the defence is likely to be critical for our European companies as regards Japan and our other industrial rivals.
I know that everybody, rightly, mentions thalidomide. I do not wish to minimise the impact that that has had on the individuals involved. I am exceedingly sorry and they have my sympathy for the suffering the victims have undergone. However, we always accentuate the negative; we never look at the positive. Innovation has brought our citizens some advantages. In my constituency, there is a company called Astra Pharmaceuticals, which has produced a chemical called Beta Loc. It is given to victims of heart attacks. The company has discovered that the victims, having been given the drug, have a vastly increased chance of survival and their recuperation is very much quicker. It has also been found that the complications that follow heart disease are very much reduced. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people walking the streets today thanks to the drug that has given them an extra lease of life.
I am sure that if the drug had been suggested for its new operation with the state-of-the-art defence removed and mentioned to the insurance companies, they would have said, "Steady, let us take this a little bit slower. Let us load the insurance and increase the field trials." I can assure the House that the graph of differences between those taking the drug and those not taking it is dramatic and the deaths from a slow introduction would have run into thousands.
We are a country of innovation. We are a country of ideas, and too often in the past we have been accused of not implementing our ideas. We have allowed other countries to exploit them. If we are not careful, and if we put too many burdens on our companies, we shall lose out in those areas of innovation. The consumer will lose out on cost and through the slowness of the introduction of innovations.
I have mentioned the consumer and my second point is the effect on the producer. I hope to persuade my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of that effect. I have no doubt that the removal of this defence will make the producer reluctant to bring forward new ideas and it is new ideas on which the employment and growth of this country depends. I can see the producers saying that they should keep on with the old methods and be a bit slower introducing new ideas. Our competition around the rim of the Pacific basin will not be as delicate. They will take our ideas and exploit them.
That brings me to a point that has concerned me regarding British companies for some time. This House tells those companies that they must have health and safety legislation, employment legislation and pollution controls and that they can then get on and produce their product. The House then says, "By the way, we are going to let you compete against products from other countries where producers do not have any of those obligations placed on them." I am not saying that we should remove those protections for the people of this country. However, we have to look a little more carefully at the methods whereby products come into this country and ensure that they are competing fairly with the British manufacturer and do not have an unfair below-the-counter advantage.
If the defence is removed and the costs of insurance increase, I can see other countries bringing their products into our land, and so many ways in which they could take a price advantage. It would not be beyond the wit of any company to set up a shell import company and move the product through the shell company into our land. If something goes wrong, the shell company has no assets in it. That could operate and would cause extreme difficulty. Some people might say that it could be followed back to the manufacturer, but I have to say that we cannot even stop counterfeit material coming into the country.
I have bought plugs and sockets from a reputable distributor believing that they were British made. They had the British kitemarks, all the patent numbers and all the "correct" origins of manufacture. Only when the plug started smouldering, burning and charring around the plastic did I realise that I had bought a far east cheap substitute. I am worried—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Was the country of origin marked on it?

Mr. Page: I know the path down which my hon. Friend is seeking to lead me, and I am willing to follow. The products said that they were made in England. That is the problem with the counterfeit products coming into this country. Without putting them to the test, they look as if they are made in Britain. I was fooled. The plugs and sockets looked to be genuine articles. I understand that even cricket bats are being manufactured in Asia and coming into this country with all the marks suggesting they were made in Britain. However, I feel that I have gone far enough down this road.
Until the world—I mean the world—has a uniform system of dealing with product liability and insurance, I sincerely ask the Minister to consider in Committee withdrawing the amendment passed in another place and reverting to the state-of-the-art defence as was originally envisaged on Second Reading in the other place.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: One of the arguments in favour of an early general election is that we would quickly be able to cut the throat of this measure which is masquerading under the title of the Consumer Protection Bill. I am sure that if an action was taken by a trading standards officer to determine whether that was a satisfactory title explaining what the Bill does, the Minister would certainly be found guilty of misleading the public, because there is no way in which this is a consumer protection Bill. It is a Bill that will create a great deal of confusion. It will cause damage to consumers and remove major consumer rights. The only encouraging aspect of the debate we have had so far was the remarkably encouraging speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) showing that within the alliance there is now at least a spark of interest in consumer affairs, rather than the alliance being simply a sort of political wing of the National Farmers Union. That was certainly encouraging and I hope that it will continue.
What are my objections to the Bill as it now stands? First, on the matter of development risks, I almost thought it was worthwhile, with the confusion created by the Bill, to see the rather ridiculous Confederation of British Industry — which occasionally sends us some sensible material—publish a paper, and pass it to Members of Parliament, which says


The wording of the EC Directive is unworkable in the context of a British Statute.
That is further than the CBI is usually prepared to go. Of course, the CBI is absolutely right. The problem is finding a proper definition of what is a "foreseeable" risk. Most people would accept that manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers have a responsibility for products that create risks for the public that can be reasonably foreseen at the time the goods are made. What is certainly not right is to have a situation in which people are held liable for risks that could not be foreseen in any possible way.
That argument has been well canvassed, and the views of the House are well known to the Minister. I hope that he will give two detailed answers to the question that I am now about to ask. Why on earth is he excluding agriculture? He must be well aware that if there are any real, genuine grounds for fearing that the public's health and safety may be damaged, it is because of the manner in which agricultural goods are produced at present.
The Minister is well aware of the use of new chemicals and the damage caused to our water supplies by the use of nitrate and other fertilisers. He must be well aware that excessive agricultural production has led to a situation in which people are at risk. If they are not at risk. there is no reason to exclude agriculture from the Bill.
Why was agriculture excluded? Is there any logical reason why agricultural producers should not be in exactly the same position as the producers of any other commodity? The Minister should give a straight answer to those questions. Would he be willing to reconsider the matter in Committee?
Secondly, what is the nature of the exclusion of agriculture? If, for example, a new agricultural process results in defective produce which at a later stage causes illness, rashes, death or some other kind of problem for the consumer, who is liable and in what way? Does the exclusion of agriculture in clause 2 mean that the producer of the original chemical or pesticide is removed from liability in relation to the effect on agricultural produce? What is the nature of the exclusion, why do we want the exclusion at all and how far does the exclusion extend?
Does not the Minister consider that he has gone too far on consumer safety in clause 10(2)? I have been told by others who have had the privilege of filling my hon. Friend's position that there is a fanatical, go-ahead and keen group in his Department which always wants to ban everything. They told me about the problem of resisting this group. One example of its activities was the famous scented erasures abolition order.
On the other hand, does not the Minister think there is a danger that this envangelical group has got together to draft the wording of clause 10(2), because it appears to make individuals liable for accidents even if, after the goods have been produced, the consumer misuses the goods, does not read the instructions or goes against the instructions? Surely a producer should not be liable for injuries sustained as a direct result of people using materials in an unsafe way.
My third detailed point relates to clause 36 and fairgrounds. I hope that the Minister misunderstood the point that I made earlier, because he gave me a dusty answer. He must be aware that in fairgrounds a number of items are carefully tested and proven to ensure that the general public is in no danger. He will be aware that,

because of this new legislation and the increased activities of health and safety officers and local authorities, fairgrounds now come under careful and strict supervision. The public is thereby protected, and no reasonable person would object to that. However, if a part needing replacement breaks down, is it fair and reasonable that powers should be provided to Customs officers to seize or detain the imported replacement part of an existing proven article based on their judgment of its safety?
Let us say that a gearbox fails and requires an imported replacement. Surely it is unreasonable for the Minister to say that it should be excluded, because it is a replacement part of something that has been accepted as fair and reasonable. If a replacement part of a fairground ride is not used for that purpose, is there anything else for which it can reasonably be used, and is it not fair and reasonable that it should be admitted if it is an integral part of an existing proven article?
The Minister will be aware that fairgrounds have difficulty surviving these days, and it is quite unreasonable to create unnecessary problems for them. A delay of 48 hours, 72 hours or however many hours the Common Market may decide to allow us can be vital for an operation that depends for its survival on a few days of good weather.

Mr. William Cash: Apart from the fact that it is important to retain the state-of-the-art defence, is my hon. Friend aware that in some circumstances replacements come from a person different from the producer of the original article? In those circumstances, I understand that the defence would not be available. I am sure that the Committee discussion will be extremely interesting, and there may be occasions when serious legal problems will arise from this legislation. However, I have confidence that somehow we shall overcome them.

Mr. Taylor: As usual, my hon. Friend has studied this matter carefully and he is absolutely right, because we are extending to fairgrounds something that at present applies to other industries. We are concerned about maintaining the safety and protection of the public while not making life impossible for industry and commerce.
My main objection is that under the Bill the Government are repealing the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, which was unanimously approved by the House of Commons. I am sure that hon. Members will regret the fact that the Second Reading debate in Hansard is unfortunately out of print, but I gather from my hon. Friends who have a copy that at that time the present Secretary of State for the Environment put forward a passionate plea in favour of origin marking as a means of giving greater protection to the consumer, of giving the information that they require and of assisting people in making the right consumer choices. He said that that Act would afford greater protection to the consumer and general public, and he gave the wholehearted support of the Government. The Opposition supported it, as did the minority parties. Everyone welcomed origin marking as something of importance to protect and inform the consumer.
Now we are told that, reluctantly, the Minister will have to scrap origin marking. No longer will foreign manufacturers be obliged to mark the country of origin on their goods. The reason, we are told, is that the Common Market thinks that our legislation is unlawful. But if he


looks at the discussions in 1972, the Minister will see that the matter was then raised by Mr. George Darling and others, who asked whether that Act was in line with the treaty of Rome, whether the Minister had checked with the Commission and whether it was lawful. The answer was specifically given by the present Secretary of State for the Environment who was then a junior Minister in another Department. He said that there was no question whatever but that that Act was acceptable to the Europeans and the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Richard Page: Does not my hon. Friend believe that retaining origin marking is a sentimenal rather than practical gesture? Is it not now exceedingly difficult to discover exactly where a product comes from, as many assembly plants draw components from all over the world? Therefore, it is increasingly difficult to say that an article is produced in one country.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend may hold that point of view, but when the matter was rationally discussed in the House of Commons, every hon. Member supported it because it was thought to be important. Now that things are becoming more complicated it is even more important for consumers to know where goods are made. In the old days one could rely on trade names. For example, if a product was marked Ford or Hotpoint, one had a rough idea of where it was made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) has said, now we do not have the slightest idea where an article comes from.
There may also be safety implications. I read a fascinating article the other day which gave details about Duracell batteries that are advertised as having a lifespan six times that of the average battery. However, that only applies to those Duracell batteries manufactured in Britain. Other Duracell batteries produced in Greece do not possess such qualities. According to the article and the Channel 4 television programme "4 what it's worth", those batteries are described as rather dangerous and do not possess the additional qualities of the British-made product, yet both are sold under the same trade name. If there was ever a need for the consumer to be protected, that need is greater now than ever before.
What changes have occurred among legal opinions with regard to the treaty of Rome? Why, when we were told that the Commission was consulted when the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 was passed, are we told that legislation must now go? What reasons do the Commission give for telling the United Kingdom that our goods must not be marked with their country of origin?
The first argument given by the Commission why British goods should not be so marked—as recorded in the excellent document produced by the Library—was that British regulations increased the production costs of imported goods, making them more difficult to sell in Britain. In other words, if goods were marked made in Germany, Italy, East Germany or Czechoslovakia, it would be more difficult for those goods to be sold in Great Britain and their costs would thereby increase.
The second reason that the Common Market has given why our goods must not be marked is that origin marking would enable consumers to assert any prejudices that they might have against foreign products. I often wonder what those who organise boycotts would do if we abolished origin marking. The Liberal party and others become

involved in boycotts of South African goods. If Liberal Members were here tonight — instead of being completely absent from their Benches — they might realise that, from the passing of this Bill, it will not be possible for Liberals, Socialists, the Co-operative or anyone else to organise a boycott of South African goods because they will not know where goods come from.
People such as myself, for reasons which my hon. Friend the Minister might regard as irrational, do not wish to buy goods produced in Communist states, where there is forced labour, and where Jewish people are persecuted. That may be foolish. Perhaps I am not acting as rationally as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister would wish me to act. However, that is my view. Why the blazes should we be told by the Common Market that we should not have information about where goods are produced if the British Parliament unanimously decided that that was a good idea?
Some people say that we must be progressive and forward looking and that the Community's main argument was that we would be un-European if we gave British people the opportunity of knowing which goods were produced in different parts of the Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will appreciate that this is the vital issue. The Common Market wants to deprive people of the opportunity of making a choice between goods produced in different parts of the Community because it would be un-European to do that—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East would be the last person who would want to be un-European. However, it is all very well for Germany to make such a claim. Germany originally raised the issue with the European Court. However, we must consider Britain's position in relation to Europe. We are not the same as Germany or France because we have a horrendous trade deficit with those countries.
When the 1972 Act was passed, Britain had a surplus in manufacturing trade with the Common Market of £55 million. It was small, but people still said that we wanted origin marking. We have a deficit in trade with the Common Market for 1986 of £10,000 million. That is a horrendous figure, more than three times the size of our deficit with Japan, about which we have heard so much nonsense recently and about which a great deal of discussion is taking place. Although the Germans may riot particlarly want to know where goods are produced, I suggest that from Britain's point of view the future viability of our economy depends on individuals who are prepared — all things being equal — to choose British goods.
Another reason why people want to retain origin marking is that some people — rightly or wrongly — regard the country of origin as a guide to quality, reliability and value for money. Some people, like myself, try to buy British when we can, not because the goods are always cheaper, but because, by and large, we believe that we will get a better deal and better quality and if something goes wrong it will be easier to do something about it. Why should we be deprived of that right by the Common Market, irrespective of the views of the British Parliament and people?
There is no point in hiding the fact that some people want to buy goods on the basis of where they come from as an expression or sign of their political views and prejudices. What is wrong with that? If we know goods are produced in countries where there is slave labour, why


should we not have the right, as consumers, to discriminate against those products? If, as we find was the case in the Soviet Union until very recently, Jews are discriminated against shamefully, surely as individuals we have the right to know whether goods came from such countries. We should not be deprived of the opportunity and should at least have the right to know the origins of goods in those circumstances.
I had the pleasure of hearing our splendid Prime Minister the other day at an exhibition where she made a superb speech about better buying British or better made in Britain—I cannot remember which. However, I know that the Government support, with lots of money, lots of organisations that are concerned with better buying British or better made in Britain. What on earth is the point of the Government spending taxpayers' money or the Prime Minister using her very valuable time addressing a conference telling people to buy British when the Minister has introduced a Bill to deprive people in this country of the chance of knowing where goods are made? This is a retrograde step which we do not want.
The Minister has told us not to worry and that he will not abolish origin marking until he can put something in its place. The Minister will be aware that, on the basis of what the Common Market has said and of the decisions of the European Court and the Commission, nothing that is realistic, significant or of value can be put in its place which will not contradict the whole principle of what the EEC has said today. The Minister will be aware of the advice given by his Department. The Department has told people that it would be happy to consider any other approaches that recipients may propose provided that they seem likely to satisfy the Department's requirements of Community law.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend accept the words "Not made outside the United Kingdom"?

Mr. Taylor: If the 1972 Act is to go, it will be even more difficult to define what is made outside the United Kingdom. It would be very difficult for the courts to interpret that definition if the 1972 Act is not enforced.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be aware that his Department has written to interested organisations explaining that all the reasonable alternatives are regarded by the EEC as completely unacceptable because the EEC takes the view that a place of origin does not confer special characteristics. There is no way in which any meaningful alternative can be introduced.
The problem is, what should the Government do? Should they simply do nothing? Should they tell the Common Market to go and jump and mind its own business or should they go ahead and simply repeal the origin marking laws and let the Europeans make the decision for us? I appreciate that there is a danger that the Government may interpret this simply as an old battle about us joining the Common Market. It is not that kind of a battle. This matter is terribly important and affects one of the fundamental freedoms and rights of the British people. It affects one of the fundamental rights of the British Parliament to make decisions of this kind which, in my view, in no way undermine the principles of membership of the Common Market.
I hope at some stage that the Government will have a long hard look at the extent to which the powers of this

Parliament are being gradually taken away and diminished, not by elected politicians, but by the non-elected Common Market Commission. We shall have another opportunity to consider the matter in September when the European Court will give its decision about whether Britain is legally correct not to apply VAT to new house building, protective clothing, protective footwear or to items such as gas and electricity for industry and commerce. The Court will tell us what we are allowed to do. That Court and the Commission are non-elected, but they will take the decision.
I hope that, on that occasion, the Government will at least put up the flag for independence. I hope that in Committee they will withdraw this offensive clause which gives the Government the power to remove origin marking. If they removed it, the Common Market would look rather silly if it took action to deny the British Parliament the right to allow our people to know where goods are made.
I accept that this is a quiet day. The moment the Opposition announced that they would not vote on the Bill, people disappeared from the building quickly. With the other things that have happened today, very few people in Britain will be aware that origin marking has been abolished, but, as the Minister is aware, these matters have a habit of catching up with the Government. I hope that he will remove the clause quickly in Committee and will let matters take their correct course. I very much doubt whether the Common Market would be stupid enough to use its battery of weapons to force the British Government, against their wishes, to abolish the principle of origin marking, which is an important right for every British consumer.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has again indulged in his anti-European utterances. We are very used to them. We have the principle of tedious repetition in our debates. I always think that it would be as well to spread the principle over more than one debate, because my hon. Friend's speech was an exact repeat of what we have heard on many other occasions.
In referring to the disappearance of origin markings—if the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 is to disappear—my hon. Friend misunderstood the complexities of the changed world in which we live. Origin marks and trade marks are much more complex than they used to be in 1972. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) that, because of the multiplicity of manufacturing efforts and the interdependence of the modern manufacturing world, not only beyond the confines of the EEC but among the member states, it is easier to talk about the specific origin of a manufactured product than to judge it accurately. For example, there may be a crossing of frontiers in the assembly of a product between a non-EEC country and a member state. If a given percentage of the product is assembled or manufactured abroad, that sometimes removes the need to have an origin mark.
Another example cited by my hon. Friend surprised me. In the old days, when the quality of goods coming from Japan was low, it was disadvantageous to the Japanese to put the words "Made in Japan" on their products, when they were compared with the high quality goods that bore the famous description which made us all so proud, "Made


in Britain". One would like to think that that was the case nowadays, but in respect of some products that is not so. If Japan was compelled to put the words, "Made in Japan" on its goods—emerging countries, such as Korea, are also beginning to make more high quality, reliable goods — would that he an advantage in promoting British sales? I very much doubt it. We can all imagine the sort of product that I mean.
A combination of the present origin marking system in the United Kingdom and a Community system is likely to be the best result. That is why this provision is not one of the more difficult parts of the Bill. I doubt whether it will cause much anxiety in Committee, but I could be wrong.
The present position is different from the position in 1972. This is very much a changed world in terms of sophisticated consumer durables and many other manufactures, and the point now is not so much that manufacturers can put origin markings on their products, but that the EEC is gradually progressing towards a common definition of an origin marking system. We do not yet know whether it will apply to products imported from outside the EEC or whether it will be compulsory. I believe that the modern attitude will be one of acceptance of the words "Made in the EEC" rather than an insistence that labels should bear the words "Made in France", "Made in Germany" or "Made in Britain". Many of us hope that, by 1992, we shall have a unified trading market in which it will be wrong and, as the European Court has already determined several times, a restraint on trade and misleading for consumers still to have compulsory origin marks. The remarks made in the debate in the House of Lords and today—with the exception of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East—have been about right.
I welcome the developments in part I of the Bill. I shared the anxiety of other hon. Members when the Opposition spokesman, after 25 minutes, said, "I now come to part II." He then took almost 40 minutes to make a series of clause stand part speeches that would have been more relevant to the Committee stage. We should remember that there was a thorough debate on, although not many amendments to, the Bill in the other place.
I welcome Second Reading of the Bill and the balance of part I. Some matters will have to be considered in Committee, but for the sake of brevity, and because I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister wishes to reply to the debate, I shall concentrate on part III and misleading prices. That is apposite, because part III has been mentioned least of all on the debate so far. I should declare an interest not only in the EEC—increasingly in dealing with national legislation, we are considering European matters — but in the retailing industry. The Minister's remarks will be welcomed, and perhaps were expected by some sections of the retailing industry in general. He said that he was willing to accept the so-called Concordat approach of all the groups that took part in the series of discussions since last October with officials and Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry about introducing a proper misleading prices regime for the future.
Although this part of the Bill has not been mentioned much so far, I believe that it will not be easy to introduce such a regime and that this is the most complex part of the Bill. The House must be aware constantly that it is extremely difficult to draft consumer safety legislation. Just as the draftsmen think that they are reaching a correct

legal formula, they begin to think that they are already creating new loopholes which clever, highly paid lawyers can exploit on behalf of their clients. It is almost inescapable in sophisticaed legislation generally; it is even worse in this case. But that does not mean that we should not try to do it, and the problem of misleading prices needs a fresh and determined approach, which the Government are showing.
I speak informally on behalf of retailers on what I believe most of them think to be correct, and I know that they welcome the measure, as they have made clear all along. As represented officially through the Retail Consortium, the British Retailers Association and other groups, many retailers feared that the proposed code of practice would be far too long, complex and difficult—especially for small traders and retailers — to follow realistically. They feared that they would be caught out constantly, which would be very unfair to them, even if it did not harm consumers. It was obviously drafted by a raft of officials, who had put in everything, trying to cover all the ground. It is much more important to create, as the Government do from clause 20 onwards, a correct definition of misleading prices and a general offence, which they can use as a powerful weapon against offenders in the future. Coupling that with sensible regulations, as was requested in the Concordat approach, and a shorter draft code of practice and a final code of practice would improve matters.
I had a letter at the end of March from a retailer representing the Retail Consortium. I think that the views expressed there would coincide with the views of many hon. Members about part III of the Bill. The letter says:
The Concordat has sought to identify the principal areas of abuse currently experienced, and to provide a simpler way of controlling them. We believe that this alternative approach accordingly stands more chance of being observed by a larger number of traders.
We also believe that enforcement officers will be more easily able to proceed against rogue traders if statutory regulations exist in respect of those abuses most frequently found in practice.
It is interesting to note that that fits in well with what the Retail Consortium said in its official letter sent to many people, including Members of Parliament, on 23 April. Speaking about the Second Reading, the letter expressed a degree of optimism that the Minister would accept the revised approach because over 200 interested parties had been consulted on the Concordat and the Government's proposals. The letter says:
We are optimistic that the Minister will announce that he has received a response in favour of the approach advocated by the Concordat, and that as a result he will table amendments to reflect the Concordat's proposals on the status of the code during the Committee Stage of the Bill.
I should like to recall to the House the British Retailers Association's official proposal of 20 February. This was the original Concordat document formulated after all the discussions. On page 2 the retailers argue strongly:
The areas which the parties propose should be covered by regulations are:

the 28 day rule
recommended retail prices
introductory offers
worth and value claims
substantiation".


The 28-day rule is an extremely important and difficult area in which to try to ensure justice for the consumer in terms of misleading price announcements. The second point about recommended retail prices is also a complex


area. Introductory offers have given rise to many abuses over the years. Some of them are difficult to detect because they are very subtle. I refer to these matters now because it will help the Second Reading debate.
Although the Minister has left the Chamber—no doubt temporarily—I am sure that a note will be made of my requests. Perhaps when the Minister is winding up he will spell out more what he means about accepting the Concordat proposals. It is necessary to affirm that the details of that approach are being accepted rather than just saying in broad outline that he goes along with them. I understand that it may not be possible for the Minister to do that at the end of this debate, but it may be necessary to have it spelt out before the Committee stage.
Reference has been made to the possibility of a general election. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is an absence of Opposition Members. It may also have to do with the likelihood of no vote being taken at the end of this debate. Whatever the reason, their absence suggests a feeling in the House that there should be a formal, short Committee stage on the Bill. I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about that. In an intervention, perhaps a sedentary one, he gave the impression that that would not be a good idea, although clearly he did that for different reasons of content in the Bill than I do.
There has been a material and lengthy debate in the other place on the three main parts of the Bill and to a much lesser extent on the other parts. The House needs to be committed not only intellectually and emotionally, but in terms of practical detail to modern consumer protection legislation. I hope that the Bill, together with some of the amendments that we may consider in Commitee, strikes the right balance. We need to look after consumers in an increasingly complex world where products continually become more complicated and sophisticated, and we need a reasonable basis of comprehensible justice, fairness and understanding for manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers. If we can strike the right balance, which is difficult, and reflect the requirements of the European Community—which I share with enthusiasm—we will make progress. That cannot be done by way of a Committee stage that is just a formality, as a result perhaps of some deal between the usual channels that might involve wider political reasons.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who was unquestionably made in the EC. That is firmly imprinted upon him. I am doing my best to become more communitaire, although between us I think that our brief knowledge of Russian could not yet be described as a communitaire activity. No doubt in his wish to enhance the Community he would like to see us walk in that direction. My hon. Friend spoke about the lack of troops on the Opposition Benches. I thought that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was seeking to talk the Bill out. Then I realised that he was inspiring the invisible ranks behind him that had fled to their constituencies in the hope of saving their deposits.
I am grateful for the opportunity to welcome the Opposition's Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). I hope that we

shall see him do his stuff and that we will he able usefully to instruct him during the remainder of the debate. I also welcome to the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). I hope that one day he will find himself in a ministerial position.
The Bill is of great interest to a wide range of British manufacturing companies. They have been through a tough time in the past few years but are now showing enormously encouraging signs. Manufacturing industry is coming out of the recession looking fitter, more competitive and more determined than ever before. It is right that we should protect the consumer from poor and faulty workmanship. British industry is foremost in wishing to see that protection. However, it is not fair to place intolerable burdens on industry because they have the effect of driving up costs and making industry less competitive than its counterparts in other countries.
It is especially important that hon. Members should not seek to use this House to make pious and sanctimonious arguments about improving consumer protection while at the same time imposing such burdens on industry and piling up hurdles between it and its markets. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said about the Department of Trade and Industry and the possibility that there is a nadir-like clique in that Department. If that is the case, I hope that the people in that clique will come to understand that they will do no service to the consumer by making even higher hurdles for industry.
I should like to speak about two aspects of the Bill. The first is product liability and the second is the country of origin mark. I declare my interest as a consultant to the Electric Cable Makers Confederation. I do so with considerable pride because that confederation contains some of the major and most successful companies in British manufacturing. If I name only BICC, GEC, Delta and Rists, one can immediately identify major British companies and success stories.
It is by drawing on specific examples of where this Bill impacts on industry that we can do a service to Parliament and, hopefully, help the Minister to find his way through the complexities of the Bill. He has been good enough to meet members of the industry who have expressed their concern to him. It is a vital industry, employing 28,000 people and with a turnover of £1,100 million, of which 25 per cent. is in exports. Approximately 50 per cent. of the industry's output, in the form of smaller distribution cables, will be affected by the Bill, so the industry has a clear interest in this measure. The Government have gone some way towards meeting the cable industry's concern, but my hon. and learned Friend should be under no illusions—the industry is still concerned about a number of items. I shall list them briefly today as they point to genuine problems that will be encountered if the Bill becomes law in its present form.
The first question is whether an electrical installation is a product. Clause 1(2)(c) defines a producer, but it is not clear who would be the producer of an electrical installation and whether the installation would fall within the definition:
'product' means any goods or electricity and … includes a product which is comprised in another product".
One thinks, for example, of wiring in a house. People are taking on increasingly complex DIY jobs and often rewire their own homes. If a person sells a house after rewiring


it and the new occupant, wishing to hang a picture where previously there was no picture hook, bangs a six-inch nail into the wall and electrocutes himself by driving it straight through an electric cable, who will be liable? Will it be the manufacturer of the cable or the person, whether he be a DIY enthusiast or a professional electrician, who installed the cable? I hope that practical problems of that kind can be addressed in Committee, if not in this debate.
Secondly, with regard to unreasonable misuse, the Bill relies upon clause 3(2) which provides:
In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) above what persons generally are entitled to expect in relaton to a product all the circumstances shall be taken into account, including …
(b) what might reasonably be expected to be done with or in relation to the product".
That is a very general statement. What might reasonably he expected by one person might not be the same for another. I understand that the Unfair Contract Terms Act provided for the publication of guidelines providing much more detailed information for industry. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister may wish to consider whether guidelines would be appropriate in this case, although it may be too complex even for that possibility. For example, if a person uses an electric mowing machine which runs over the cable and cuts it, is that unreasonable use of the cable?
The Government argue that these are matters for the courts to decide. That would be fine if things were as simple as that, but they are not. Companies may not be able to obtain the necessary insurance cover to protect themselves against what could be very substantial financial penalties. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West, who has just returned to the Chamber, mentioned that aspect. He stated very fairly that the Association of British Insurers felt that the existing situation could be covered hut did not express an opinion about the possibility of covering the situation if the Bill became law. If I have got that slightly wrong, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.

Mr. Williams: I left the Chamber briefly to deal with some telephone calls. The association said, not that cover could not be offered but that the amount of cover would be limited. In other words, it could not guarantee the amount.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That reservation is itself a serious limitation on what the insurance market can do. The CBI brief states:
The Association of Insurance and Risk Managers in Industry and Commerce (AIRMIC), which represents those responsible for buying insurance on behalf of their companies … point out that high risk and high-tech research and development based industries in this country are having real difficulties in getting appropriate cover for product liability 'at any price'. They continue: 'If, as we know is the case, the insurance industry is not able to provide the cover that we need at present, one must question their ability to provide cover under a strict liability regime, let alone one without a development risks defence'.
I wish to put that point on record. It will be very difficult for companies to obtain cover. One area that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister may wish to consider concerns high-tech companies producing medical equipment.
It is not just a problem of insurance. We are seeking to impose on industry a more time-consuming measure. If these matters go to the courts, people in industry will have to brief lawyers and spend time establishing case law. The preamble to the Bill states:

There are not expected to be any implications for public expenditure or public service manpower.
It says nothing about the expected impact on manpower in industry. There is a defence under clause 4(1)(f) for the supplier of a component if
the d effect—

((i)) constituted a defect in a product (`the subsequent product') in which the product in question had been comprised; and
(ii) was wholly attributable to the design of the subsequent product or to compliance by the producer of the product in question with instructions given by the producer of the subsequent product."


That is fair enough, but the cable manufacturer has absolutely no control over the ultimate use of the cable. He does not sell directly, for example, to a lawn mower manufacturer; he sells to cable wholesalers. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will take on board the difficulties faced by an industry of that kind which wants to be responsible and which already exercises enormous care to ensure that its products are safe but which has no control over the end user.
My third point concerns the state of the art defence. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). It is vital that there should be a much broader defence, as was originally provided in the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister was kind enough to say that he would listen carefully to the representations made. I hope that he will take careful note of this one. The Society of British Aerospace Companies and other major elements of industry are most concerned about this. I hope that the Government will consider this in Committee and perhaps restore the original wording.
My fourth point affects not only the cable industry hut many others. Producers in this country are at a potential disadvantage compared with overseas producers selling cheap stuff through importing houses in the United Kingdom which are frequently £100 companies. Export-import businesses are almost the easiest thing to get into if one is at a loss for something to do. One does not need much capital and one can set oneself up as a £100 company. Under the Bill, it will be the importer that the consumer who has been injured, or perhaps has lost a member of his family, will sue. What use will the Bill he in such circumstances? If the importer is just a £100 company, it can simply go bust and not pay up. British companies will be applying all the rules under the Bill while the foreign competition will be able to get off scot-free.
The argument about the origin of country marking was eloquently articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East who, as always, spoke with vigour for Britain. While I welcome what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, the Bill states that the 1972 Act will be repealed. I do not quite understand how that squares with what he told me in my intervention in his speech. I hope that he can clarify that. This measure is contrary to everything else that we are doing for consumer protection. The whole emphasis has been on giving the consumer much more information on which to make a balanced judgment. That is what we believe when we say that we are in favour of the market. Giving people choice means giving people information on which to make that choice. The abolition of this requirement will deny the consumer information that he has at the moment, and that will limit his scope for making a choice.
I am one of those who seek at every opportunity to buy British, and I am proud of that. Much to the chagrin of my wife, I turn products over to see whether they are made in Britain. If they are not, I will not buy them unless there is no British substitute. There is still high unemployment in the west midlands. We hear people in the south-east moaning about that, but they run around in foreign motor cars. If they want to improve the unemployment position in the west midlands, they should go out and buy British manufactured goods. That is the biggest contribution that we can all make to solving unemployment. However, the Bill threatens to deny us the opportunity to do what we can as individual consumers to support British industry and solve the unemployment problem.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend has noted all the observations made from the Government Back Benches. The removal of country of origin marking is not acceptable to the British people. They see it as a manifestation of what they all feared when we entered the EEC—that power would be ceded from Westminster to Brussels. I am sorry if that offends my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, but that is how people outside perceive these things. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will do everything in his power to resist this trend and to make sure that any successor arrangements are just as good as those that prevail now.

Mr. William Cash: I declare an interest as an adviser to the British Foundry Association, which has made a number of points about the Bill. In particular, it wants to support the state-of-the-art defence. As I said in an intervention, problems also arise under clause 4 and its definitions, which were changed in the other place. The British Foundry Association members have a problem under the new version. Where they have been involved in the making of castings to a specific order of an original producer and these wear out and need to be replaced, orders for replacements can and do come from persons other than the original producer, who may no longer exist. In such circumstances, the association is concerned that there would be no defence for its members, as makers of the castings from the original foundry. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider these points in Committee.
I notice that in part III, which is entitled "Misleading Price Indications", we may have an opportunity to come back to a point about which I have corresponded with the Minister. This arises out of my amendment to the Banking Bill. I was particularly concerned that there should be a proper disclosure of the manner in which interest is accumulated when customers of banks incur overdrafts.
I do not want to go into this in detail, because it is already on the record. I had a most helpful letter from the Minister — one that is worthy of a press release, although I held it back. He has conceded the principle that he will be looking at all this and that something will come of our discussions and correspondence. The voluntary ombudsman service has already stated that there are a number of serious deficiencies in the current system. I see no good reason why the manner in which interest is arrived at could not properly be disclosed.
I am particularly glad to notice that the definition of price of services includes the possibility of interest. In clause 22, under the definition of services, there is included

the provision of credit, banking or insurance services. I am hopeful that this may be a mechanism whereby banks would be required to produce accurate information for their customers as to the manner in which interest is accumulated. I hesitate to say this but those who are interested might save time by looking at my comments about this subject made in the Committee considering the Banking Bill, as those comments summarise my position.
In its parliamentary brief, the CBI has said that it is vital, in the interests of society as a whole, that the development risk defence is retained and precisely worded.
I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and I have taken a close interest in European affairs. However, the idea that we should automatically take on the precise wording of a directive fills me with horror. We must not assume, because it is contrary to the nature of a directive in the first place, that it is up to us to implement the objectives of the directive in its exact wording. If we were to do so, we would rapidly get into serious difficulties.
Our method of interpretation is somewhat different from that in the European Community, although when it comes to matters of interpretation before the European Court, we have to follow its method of interpretation. We should stick to the wording in the Bill as originally introduced. We should not take the European directive wording lock, stock and barrel. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will have plenty to say on this subject on another occasion.

Mr. Howard: I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting debate. Some have suggested various ways in which we might change the Bill to reflect the interests of either industry or the consumer. I shall comment on as many of the points that have been raised as I can, but if I omit any I apologise in advance and no doubt there will be an opportunity to discuss them on other occasions.
I remind hon. Members that our purpose in part I is to implement the product liability directive. That directive was agreed by all member states of the community and there are very few areas where we can make choices. Where we can make a choice, it is right that we should debate that choice. However, it is not our policy to go beyond the directive. Our intention is merely to implement it by the provisions in part I.
The main purpose of the directive is to reduce distortions in competition and barriers to trade throughout the Community by providing a common level of protection for consumers throughout the member states. I agree that this harmonisation is not yet total, but it is an important step towards that goal and we should do all that we can to ensure that the law relating to defective products is completely harmonised throughout the Community.
I now turn to the points which were raised by right hon. and hon. Members on part I of the Bill. First, I shall deal with the point which was made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) about the extent to which the development risks defence might give rise to a repetition of the thalidomide tragedy. It is very important to clarify our minds and think about the relevance of that argument to the development risks defence in the Bill.
I have no intention of minimising in any way the anguish and suffering of the children who were damaged by thalidomide, or that of their parents. I question the extent to which the discussion of the liability of the manufacturers of thalidomide is relevant to any discussion on the Bill. A legal decision was never reached on the liability of the manufacturers of thalidomide because the case was settled out of court, and in the absence of that decision it would be irresponsible of me, or anyone else, to make a judgment as to that company's liability.
While I agree that the thalidomide tragedy was the impetus behind protective legislation of several types in many member states, and indeed was the major reason for the initial proposals which resulted in the directive that we are implementing through the Bill, we must be careful not to make unrealistic connections between that matter and the Bill. It is particularly relevant to note that there have been significant changes in the circumstances in which drugs may be tested on human beings or marketed generally in this country since the late 1950s, when thalidomide was first supplied. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) pointed out those differences.
The Medicines Act 1968, which in large part was brought into being in the wake of the thalidomide case, ensures that no medicinal product can be manufactured, sold, supplied or imported into this country, except in accordance with the appropriate licences and clinical trial certificates as to the safety and quality of that product. I doubt whether the thalidomide case is relevant to the Bill, and I think that we should concentrate our attention on what the development risks defence means in reality to industry and consumers.
Still on the development risks defence, I should say something about insurance cover. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West, and many other hon. Members who contributed to the debate, said something about the relevance of insurance cover. It is true that the view of the Association of British Insurers is that, as long as the development risks defence is maintained, the Bill as a whole should not lead, and is not expected to lead, to a great increase in the cost of insurance.
The ABI went on to say—the right hon. Member for Swansea, West mentioned this, but I am not sure that he fully and properly conveyed the implications of its second point—that if the development risks defence is taken out of the Bill, the availability of insurance would be reduced. That does not necessarily mean that there will be a limit to the liability which might he covered by insurance in certain circumstances; it could go to the question whether cover could be obtained at all. That is a serious matter; that is what the availability of insurance means; that is what is called into question if the development risks defence is removed.
To suggest, as the hon. Member for Greenwich did, that this was a question of a modest increase was wholly to misrepresent the nature of the risks in relation to the availability of insurance which manufacturers of products in this country would run if the development risks defence were removed from the Bill. That is a matter to which I attach a great deal of importance.
I now turn to the exclusion from the Bill of agricultural products. This point was raised, with his usual forcefulness, by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who asked a number of questions about it. I shall also attempt to deal with the

difference between initial processing and industrial processing, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.
The directive excludes liability for primary agricultural products, and the Government are implementing the directive in this respect. It is true that member states are entitled to derogate from this provision but, so far as we are aware, no other member state intends to make use of that derogration to include liability for primary agricultural products, and for us to do so would not only fly in the face of our aim of eventual harmonisation but could place United Kingdom farmers at a disadvantage throughout the Community. I hope that that would not commend itself to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. That is an important reason behind our decision not to take advantage of this derogation.

Mr. Williams: Unfortunately, my notes are with Hansard. However, the point that I remember making is not whether there should be a derogation; it was that in the directive—

Mr. Howard: I am coming to that.

Mr. Williams: In that case, I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Howard: I was dealing with the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Greenwich, who said that she was not only speaking for herself but reflecting—an interesting word, I thought—the views of her party. Her party is adept at reflecting the views of the last person who has been speaking to the particular spokesman of the party involved. Perhaps I should not dwell too long on that point.
There are other reasons for our decision not to take advantage of this derogation. Primary agricultural products are particularly prone to environmental defects which are beyond the control of the farmer. More often than not, a farmer's supplies are mixed at market with the supplies of other farmers before undergoing processing. It would be very difficult to identify any particular supplier. I do not claim that agricultural products uniquely have these features, but for them the combination of these features is more common and more important than it is for anything else.
I shall deal with the difference in terminology which was raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. We are quite clear that what is intended to be excluded are the sort of things that are done on farms, such as harvesting and threshing, and things which are necessary to produce the product in its marketable form, so the slaughter of animals is included.
The exact words in the directive—"initial processing"—did not seem very apt. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that we should not simply adopt the language of the Community directive. There is a rather confusing implication in using the words "initial processing". Processing which goes beyond initial processing is not excluded; that result would clearly be absurd. In addition, we believe that the word "initial" may suggest that some processes which we consider to be part and parcel of the production of primary agricultural products are covered by the directive.
We think that the reference to products that have not undergone an industrial process expresses the underlying intentions of the directive, as expressed in its own


preamble, rather better than the language of the directive itself. That is why we have chosen to change the wording to that extent from that in the directive.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will say something about the extent to which agriculture is exempted. I mentioned a number of examples and I should like to know what the position is.

Mr. Howard: There is no intention to exclude agricultural products from the kind of liability which they attract at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East mentioned a number of hypothetical circumstances and asked where the liability would lie in those circumstances. At the moment, liability is attracted under the law of contract. There would also be liability under the law of tort — if, for instance, it could be demonstrated that a farmer or manufacturer of a spray, or something of that kind, which was used in the course of the growth of the product concerned were negligent. Nothing in the directive or the Bill affects that liability. The only question is whether the additional liability provided by the Bill should be applied to agricultural products. For the reasons that I have given, we do not think that that would be an appropriate course to take.
I was pleased to hear the warm welcome that the general safety requirement received from, I think, every hon. Member who spoke. Perhaps I should remind the House of the important differences between that part of the Bill and part I. Part I imposes a civil liability only and covers most products. Part II will make it a criminal offence to supply unsafe consumer goods and civil liability will attach only in respect of breaches of specific safety regulations, in a similar way to the provisions in the Consumer Safety Act 1978.
A number of points were raised about part II. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West returned to the pleasant disputation that took place in the Standing Committee on the private Member's Bill promoted last year by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) about the time for which Customs officers would be able to detain goods—not, I emphasise, as was incorrectly stated by the right hon. Gentleman, in order to decide whether goods are safe or unsafe—that is not the purpose of detention of goods by customs officers—but so that the officers may form a provisional judgment on whether the attention of trading standards officers should be drawn to those goods. The trading standards officers decide whether goods are safe or unsafe and whether action is to be taken. Customs officers make a preliminary assessment and the Standing Committee was eventually persuaded to agree that 48 hours was a sufficient period within which that assessment should be completed.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West accepted that it would not be possible to attach to second-hand goods the same standards of safety that one attaches to new goods. That poses the problem of how to assess the appropriate standards of safety. That would be a difficult exercise, which would enormously complicate the enforcement of any provision. Another difficulty is that second-hand goods are often bought by the least advantaged members of the community who know that those items will have to be renovated before they can be used safely. I see no reason to deprive people of that

opportunity. To do so would be a splendid example of well-meaning legislation worsening the lot of those whom it is designed to help.
That is not to say that no problem can arise over second-hand goods. We recognise the potential and that is why we propose to deal with second-hand goods that are particularly prone to pose risks to the safety of consumers by relying on regulations. I am confident that that balance is the best one to adopt and that it will survive whatever scrutiny the right hon. Member for Swansea. West and his colleagues submit it to in Committee.
The third part of the Bill makes it an offence to give misleading price indications. There has been a wide welcome for my decision to accept the proposals advanced by the Concordat during the passage of the Bill through another place. I shall certainly take to heart some of the observations made about the possibility of simplifying and shortening the code.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) asked how we could repeal the 1972 Act in the Bill but not activate the repeal until a satisfactory replacement regime had been identified. The answer is that each provision in the Bill will need a commencement order before it is brought into effect. I have said that no commencement order for the repeal of the 1972 Act will take effect until a satisfactory regime has been devised and put in place.

Mr. Williams: Will the commencement order be subject to the positive or the negative resolution procedure? Will the House have an opportunity to debate the matter again before the 1972 Act is repealed?

Mr. Howard: We can consider that matter in Committee. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have views to express.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I did not seek to imply that my hon. and learned Friend was being devious, and I see now that under clause 50(2) each provision can he brought into effect by order. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that clarification.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The discussion has been wide ranging, but no more so than I would have expected on a subject as diverse as the protection of consumers. The Bill is important, both to industry and to the users of its products and services. It is important that we take time to consider its implications for us all, but I hope that those who pay attention to these matters will have been struck, as I was, by the concern expressed by my hon. Friends about the problems that face British industry and the extent to which it can obtain insurance for its products, compete effectively in the market place, and provide employment for our people. That was in contrast to the rather unworldly attitudes adopted by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, who spoke for the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who spoke for the alliance. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bill).

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [LORDS.] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Consumer Protection Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred or compensation payable by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of any provision of that Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since 1965, there have been six Acts of Parliament dealing with the parliamentary pensions scheme. On almost every occasion, the Minister responsible has had to apologise for the complexity of the legislation. This Bill is no exception, but I hope that it will allow some of the complexities of the present arrangements to be avoided in the future.
The Bill's main purpose is to enable the parliamentary pensions scheme to be contained in regulations rather than in primary legislation. That has two advantages: it makes the scheme simpler and more readily understandable. The current rules of the scheme will be able to be published in consolidated form, so that it will be easier to consult them, and any future changes to the rules will require not primary legislation but the simpler procedure appropriate to statutory instruments.
Before I describe the contents of the Bill in more detail, I should make a couple of general points. The first is the importance I attach to listening to Members' comments about the scheme and to discussing with Members any changes the Government propose. My commitment to this will, I hope, be clear not just from the Bill's provisions on consultation, but from the steps I have taken already to explain to Members what the Bill itself would do. I am grateful for the views of those Members I have been able to consult during the preparation of this Bill. I believe they generally appreciated the reasons for simplifying the scheme in the way we propose. I should particularly pay tribute to the chairman of the trustees of the pension fund, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for his help and advice.
The second general point is to emphasise, especially to the House, that this Bill does not amend the provisions of the scheme in any way. I am aware that some aspects of the scheme are seen by some hon. Members as unsatisfactory, but we have a tradition of referring proposals for improvements in our pension arrangements to an independent body. The House will recall that substantial changes were made to the scheme in 1984 following recommendations by the Top Salaries Review Body. In view of this I do not expect the TSRB to offer recommendations on the pension scheme again in the near future.

Mr. John McWilliam: Surely the Leader of the House is not implying that the House, when it last took the decision as a result of the recommendations of the TSRB, actually enacted the recommendations of the TSRB. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it did not.

Mr. Biffen: The House has never been in a position of formally, totally and exactly reflecting any recommendations from the TSRB. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will none the less conclude, if he considers the legislation that was put through the House following that report on the pension scheme, that it reflected many of the recommendations, including the extremely valuable one on the rate of accrual. I accept that, of course, the House never has reflected and doubtless never will precisely and


exactly reflect the recommendations of the TSRB. I will, of course, take note of any points that are raised today about the substance of the scheme, but I believe that our debate should and must concentrate on the contents of the Bill itself.
Clause 1 reproduces the main provisions of the existing legislation governing the existence of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The fund will continue to operate with the current trustees, appointed by the House, as it does now. Detailed arrangements for the conduct of the trustees' business will, in future, be contained in regulations.
Clause 2 is the heart of the Bill. It gives a power to the Leader of the House to make regulations providing for pensions for Members, Ministers and certain other office-holders. The principal matters that may be covered by the regulations are listed in schedule 1. This clause and schedule are based on various provisions of the Superannuation Act 1972 which governs most of the main public service pensions schemes. Schedule 2 provides for the current legislation to continue to have effect until it is replaced, as appropriate, by regulations made under the new power.
Although the change from primary legislation to regulations means that the opportunities in the House for debate and amendment of the Government proposals will be less extensive, the clause provides significant safeguards for the rights of Members. No regulations can be made that adversely affect the accrued pension rights of former Members or office-holders no longer in service at the time of the making of the regulations, or their dependants, without their consent. The Leader of the House is obliged to consult the trustees and Members' representatives before making any regulations. The regulations themselves will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses.
Clause 3 provides for the continuation of the annual Exchequer contribution to the fund, which is based on the recommendation of the Government Actuary. He will continue to report on the fund every three years, but the Bill does slightly amend present practice. In future the Government Actuary will be recommending a rate of contribution by the Exchequer for the years following publication of his report, rather than the years following the valuation date, which may be some time before the report is published. This will avoid unexpected adjustments to the rate of contribution, which can upset the trustees' investment activities.
Clause 4 gives authority for the payment of a pension to the widow of Lord Maybray-King, the distinguished former Speaker who died last year. When Mr. Speaker King retired in 1971 his pension arrangements were set out in a special Act of Parliament, as was the practice then. This provided for a pension to be paid to his then, wife, who was named in the Act, in the event of his death. She died, however, and he remarried, but the Act did not provide a pension for his surviving widow. There has been a certain amount of public comment on this provision, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to correct any misleading impression that may have been given. Mr. Speaker King's Retirement Act makes specific provision for his widow's pension to be subject to the limitations applying to the pension of Members' widows. Since the parliamentary pension scheme began in 1965, it has

provided that the survivor of a marriage after retirement should be entitled to a pension. But it would clearly have been invidious to have made explicit provision in the 1971 Act for the possibility of Mr. Speaker King being married to anyone other than his then wife at the time of his death. Clause 4 is, therefore, needed to ensure that Lady Maybray-King is in no worse a position than if her husband had remained just a Member of Parliament and had not become Speaker.
The House will see from this brief description that the Bill is almost wholly concerned with the legislative framework of the scheme. As I suggested earlier, I envisage no substantial changes to the scheme itself in the absence of recommendations from the TSRB. Some changes will be necessary before next April, however, so that the scheme complies with the requirements of the Social Security Act 1986.
The most significant change is that membership of the scheme will no longer be compulsory for Members. This means that we, like all other members of occupational pension schemes, will be able to take advantage of the new freedom to choose personal pensions. I shall not detain the House further on this point now. I have already circulated to Members an outline of the pension scheme illustrating their effects, and we shall, of course, have an opportunity to debate the regulations themselves. I am incidentally indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for pointing out an ambiguity in that outline in the reference to pensions based on final salary: in common with many other schemes, pensions are based on the salary earned in the last 12 months of service, rather than the rate in payment on the date of retirement.
In conclusion, I say to the House that I believe that we should not take up an inordinate amount of parliamentary time with debates on our terms and conditions. It is, however, right that there should be a proper degree of public and parliamentary scrutiny. This short and relatively modest Bill improves the modalities by which we make and discuss these arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: I believe that the House will want to thank the Leader of the House for that extremely clear and unusually concise presentation of what is, in fact, a rather complex matter. I accept that, as the right hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed and as the explanatory and financial memorandum tells us, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable the parliamentary pension scheme to be set out in regulations rather than, as at the present time, in successive Acts of Parliament.
The Bill makes no changes to the rules of the present scheme, but in future it will enable further developments in the parliamentary pension scheme to be made by regulations rather than by primary legislation. The case for making future changes by regulation rather than by primary legislation is that since pensions for Members of Parliament were first introduced in the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pension Act 1965 no fewer than five Acts of Parliament have been found necessary during the following 20 years. I accept that the scheme is now very complex and that further amendments to the scheme as it now stands would make it even harder to follow than it is today.
The Bill proposes three things. The first is that the parliamentary contribution fund should continue and that


the elected trustees should continue to decide how to invest the assets of that fund. Secondly, it provides that the present rules of the scheme should be continued. Existing provisions, therefore, both those enacted by previous primary and secondary legislation, which relate to the parliamentary contributory pension fund, are to be continued. They are set out in schedule 2 and the provisions are safeguarded as though they were contained in regulations under clause 2. These features will not be controversial. Indeed, the House will be pleased that the trustees' role is to be safeguarded.
Thirdly, the Leader of the House is empowered to make regulations for future changes to the scheme. The provisions are listed in the 13 paragraphs of schedule 1. Clause 2(4)(a) enables the Leader of the House to make regulations covering any or all of those provisions. Clause 2(4)(b) gives the Leader of the House the power to make regulations from a date before they are made. If I understand that correctly, it is a retrospective power.
Clause 2(4)(c) provides a general power to make different provisions in respect of different recipients. These powers will give greater flexibility to the scheme but they are wide ranging. The powers are to be exercised by statutory instrument and the Bill provides that regulations cannot be made unless the trustees, other representatives and those who are eligible for a pension are consulted by the Leader of the House. That is welcome. Regulations must be approved by a vote in both Houses. The approval is to be sought by affirmative resolution guaranteeing what would normally be a one and a half hour debate.
No one will doubt that the regulation-making power gives very great power indeed to the Leader of the House and to the Government. If the past is any guide, in future many matters of controversy will arise from further proposed changes in the parliamentary pension scheme. The House might wish to make amendments to what the Leader of the House proposes. That will not be possible because a regulation can only be accepted, defeated or withdrawn.
Moreover, the one and a half hour debate will be inadequate for any major proposal for change. The great advantage of proceeding by way of further primary legislation is that it gives ample scope for debate and for considered amendment. The disadvantage is the increasing complexity of primary legislation and the lack of flexibility.
These points, in particular the objections to the regulation-making procedure, have been put strongly to the Leader of the House and I believe that he recognises the widespread concern.
One proposal that has emerged in discussion is that which allows debate on an amendable motion before any regulations altering the scheme are laid before the House. The amendable motion is the procedure by which we decide such complex matters as Members' pay, the amount and content of the secretarial allowance, car allowance and other controversial matters. As a result of those debates on the motions, amended or not, and approved by the House, regulations are subsequently issued. Such a procedure has the great advantage of allowing for detailed amendment and for debate not being limited to one and half hours. Such a procedure would meet the anxieties expressed by many hon. Members. We shall listen with particular interest to what the Minister says later. I hope that it will be possible to explore the matter further in Committee.
The other main change in the Bill is the provision which governs the Exchequer contribution to the parliamentary contributory pension fund as provided for in clause 3. The Government Actuary will continue to value the fund every three years and to produce a report as soon as practicable after the valuation date. Each report will continue to recommend the Exchequer contribution rate and the changes will come into effect in the year following the year in which the report is made, and in the two subsequent years. This differs from present arrangements whereby the Exchequer contribution to the fund is set from the three years starting with the year of the valuation date. It is claimed that the change will lead to a smoother adjustment to whatever new rate is proposed. I am inclined to accept that.
That apart, there is only one other change to the Bill to which the Leader of the House referred. Clause 4 amends Mr. Speaker King's Retirement Act 1971 and provides a pension for the widow of the late Lord Maybray-King. This has attracted some critical attention since it extends the right to a pension to the survivor of Lord Maybray-King's post-retirement marriage. However, the provision is in line with the current arrangements for Speakers' widows' pensions and for the pensions of the widows of other Members of Parliament, which also provide for the payment of pension to the survivor of a post-retirement marriage. I was surprised at that. As such a provision has been part of the parliamentary pension scheme since it was introduced in 1965 it would, indeed, be an anomaly if Lord Maybray-King's widow were to be treated differently from the widows of other Members.
The Leader of the House has made it clear that he does not intend to introduce in the Bill any other changes in the provisions of the parliamentary pensions scheme. I accept that this is not the occasion to make major amendments to the scheme since we shall shortly receive the report of a further review of parliamentary pay and allowances from the TSRB, but there are a number of anomalies which we now have the opportunity to rehearse or to remove.
I was a little worried about what the Leader of the House said about the next TSRB report. He gave the impression that it would not consider pensions. I would not like the Leader of the House or anybody else to think that we reached in the 1984 Act a perfection in pension provision, because clearly that is not so. We have been learning slowly over the years how to construct a reasonable pension arrangement for Members who have, after all, the most curious and most threatened career structure of any group in the country.
On the subject of anomalies, the House will recall that in the 1984 Act it is agreed that if a Member retires at the end of a Parliament, and if at that time he is over 60 and has served for 20 years, he is entitled to a full, unabated pension. There will be a small number of hon. Members, aged 57, 58 or 59, who have completed 20 years of service and who do not wish to serve again for the life of a further Parliament. It is reasonable for such ex-Members to wait until they are 60 before drawing their full, unabated parliamentary pension. But as things stand such a Member has to defer drawing such a pension until he is 65, unless he is prepared to draw a substantially abated pension. Surely that anomaly should be put right.
Further thought should be given to the 60/20 rule. If a Member has reached the age of 60 and has served for 20 years but stands and is defeated in the subsequent general


election, he is not qualified under the current rules to draw an unabated pension. He is in exactly the same position as a Member over 60 who has completed 20 years' service but who decides not to stand again at the general election. The logic or justice of treating one Member differently from another is not clear.
There is a further anomaly. All hon. Members are entitled to severance pay, or resettlement grant, if they lose their seats at a general election, if they cannot stand as a result of boundary changes, if their constituencies cease to exist or if they retire at a general election. The resettlement grant is graded according to the age of the Member and the period of his service. That applies to all Members except those who have reached the normal age of retirement. For them, no resettlement grant or severance pay is available. Again, that does not seem to me to be fair.
Some hon. Members first enter the House in their middle years. They may well have served for fewer than 20 years before their retirement. Therefore, they will not be eligible for a full parliamentary pension, but no resettlement grant is available to them. Again, that is anomalous when compared to a Member of Parliament who conforms to the 60/20 rule but who chooses to retire at the age of 60. He is entitled to a resettlement grant as well as to his full pension. I believe, therefore, that there is a strong case for making a retirement cash payment equal to the resettlement grant for Members who retire at over 65. It is possible that the Leader of the House or the Minister of State, Treasury will be able to give an assurance on those points. Perhaps hon. Members will wish to frame amendments for the Committee stage.
I conclude with a further point that deserves attention—the contribution that members of the pension scheme and the Treasury make to the fund. The House will recall that in the 1984 Act Members' contributions were increased from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. of salary. That was 1 per cent. higher than the 1983 review of parliamentary pay and allowances had recommended. Since then, we have had the report of the Government Actuary, which was laid before the House on 26 November 1986, and which valued the fund as it stood on 1 April 1984. It showed a remarkable increase in the value of the fund from £20·6 million in April 1981 to £41·7 million three years later. That has enabled the Government Actuary to recommend that the Treasury contribution be reduced from 16 per cent. in 1984 to 13 per cent. in 1987.
I have no knowledge of the value of the fund to date, but if it has kept pace with market values generally it must be at least twice the £41·7 million value in April 1984. If that is so, there will already be a strong surplus of assets over all computable liabilities in the pension fund now. Under present arrangements, that will simply mean, when the Government Actuary next reports, a further—and large — reduction in the Treasury contribution. The Social Security Act 1986 allows Members to opt out of the parliamentary pension scheme in favour of a personal pension. That must make the parliamentary pension scheme less attractive. On the face of it, the 9 per cent. Members' contribution seems to have been set too high and a new basis for calculating the Treasury contribution or other changes and improvements in the benefits available under the pension fund are now required.
I hope that we shall hear more about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe

(Mr. Morris), and, indeed, from other trustees of the fund. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Treasury Minister.
This is in no sense a party issue. I am speaking for myself and reflecting my own views, not the views of my party, but I hope that in Committee it will be possible to make further progress in improving our parliamentary and other pension arrangements and removing the anomalies that still exist, which are small in cost but burdensome in their effect.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his extremely kind reference to me in his opening speech. As he said, I have a very special interest in this Bill as chairman both of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the House of Commons Members' fund.
I pay tribute to the quiet and unpublicised, but often difficult and always painstaking, work of my fellow trustees in the service of their fellow Members. At the same time, I place on record here the unfailing help that we receive from Jim Dobson, Tony Lewis, Frank Brewer and all who work with them in the Fees Office. Nothing is too much trouble for them if they can help any Member of this House, past or present, or their dependants. The House as a whole owes them its gratitude.
The cumulative effect of six separate Acts of Parliament and 20 or so statutory instruments has made the parliamentary pension scheme, as it now exists, administratively very complex; and we have reached the stage where further amendments would make it extremely hard to follow. This Bill makes no changes to the rules of the scheme, or to the benefits available, but will enable the existing legislation to be consolidated in regulations or to continue to have effect as if contained in regulations, as appropriate, and will also enable future amendments to the scheme to be made by regulations. So the Bill, on which I congratulate the Leader of the House, is deserving of support on two counts. First, it will be more convenient and make the scheme more comprehensible to have it in a single document; and, perhaps more importantly, any future amendments will not be subject to the constraints of the parliamentary time available for primary legislation and can thus be implemented more quickly.
Contributions under the original Act in 1965 were expressed as a fixed sum of £150 a year from each Member with, effectively, a matching Exchequer contribution. There was provision for an additional Exchequer contribution to meet the cost of pensions in respect of non-contributory, but reckonable, service before the scheme started. The 1965 Act further provided that benefits and/ or contributions could be varied in the light of any surplus or deficiency revealed by an actuarial review of the fund.
By contrast, the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 determined the Member's contribution at 5 per cent. of salary, leaving the Exchequer contribution to be determined by the Government Actuary at the appropriate level necessary to balance assets and liabilities. This means, of course—and it is essential for the fact to be understood by the House as a whole—that the fund can never go into surplus, no matter how well the investments perform. Equally, it means that the prospects of securing improvements in the scheme, based on successful investment management, are effectively vetoed since the


Exchequer contribution correspondingly diminishes as a result. I ask the House to take very careful note of that point.
The amendments recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body in its 20th report were estimated to increase the cost of benefits under the scheme from about 18 per cent. to 22 per cent. of a Member's salary. It was therefore recommended that the Member's contribution should be, as before, approximately three eighths, or 8 per cent. Notwithstanding the review body's recommendation, the Government decided that the Member's contribution should be 9 per cent. The effect of that decision, endorsed by the House, has been to cause the Government Actuary to recommend a significant reduction in the Exchequer contribution from 3·3 times Members' contributions in 1985–86 to 2·3 in 1986–87 and only 2·0 thereafter. I must strongly emphasise to the House that this compares most unfavourably with other pension funds. The Government Actuary's Seventh Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes 1983, which was published in 1986, shows that across the board employers' contributions are 3·03 times employees' contributions. The multiple for the public sector alone is 2·6. Allowing for the fact that the parliamentary scheme's multiple also contains an element relating to pensions in respect of pre-1964 service, the Exchequer contribution to our scheme is inferior to that for the public sector taken as a whole.
There have, of course, been many improvements in the scheme over the years, in which the trustees have taken a leading role, not least those in the accrual rate; in the qualifying age/service conditions for early retirement at a general election; and the provision for ill-health retirement pensions. There is, however, a strong case for further improvements, and it is ultimately for the House to decide if and when they should be effected. Take, for example, the relationship between salary and pension. In 1975, the TSRB recommended a parliamentary, salary of £8,000, compared with £4,500 per annum then payable. Although the recommendation was not implemented in full (the salary moving only to £5,750) the Government of the day nevertheless permitted a higher notional salary to be implemented for pension purposes. Thus, the widow of a Member who died in service was awarded a pension correspondingly higher than would otherwise have been the case. The House may think that this precedent should be followed in all circumstances where a Government cannot see their way fully to implement TSRB recommendations on pay at the outset, as happened in 1983.
Ill-health retirement is another subject of concern. On retirement for reasons of ill health, service is enhanced to twice its actual length if that is less than 10 years or, if service is more than 10 years, to 20 years or by six and two thirds years, whichever is greater. In no case can the enhancement be greater than the period from the date of retirement to sixty-fifth birthday. The current practice of the Inland Revenue would permit a pension based on potential service to age 65. So if a Member retires on ill-health grounds at the age of 55, with 23 years' service, under the parliamentary pensions scheme his or her pension is based on 28 and two thirds years, whereas under Revenue rules it could be based on 32 years. In the 10 cases we have had to date, seven pensioners would have benefited under a change to the Revenue maximum.
I turn now to the death in service gratuity. The gratuity payable on death in service is a sum equal to a Member's

salary. The Revenue limit is four times salary, including any retained benefits. If the gratuity in the parliamentary scheme were to be set at twice the Member's salary at the date of death, the question of retained benefit could be ignored. On current salary, the widow of a Member who died in service would, therefore, receive £37,000, compared with the Revenue limit of double that amount, less any retained benefits as defined by it.
The pension paid to widows and widowers is currently one half of the Member's notional ill-health pension. The Revenue maximum is two thirds of the Member's notional ill-health pension, based on potential service to age 65. So if a Member dies in service at the age of 55, with 22 years' service, the widow or widower would receive over £2,500 a year less than the Revenue maximum allows. Moreover, under our scheme, the widow's or widower's pension ceases on remarriage or cohabitation, whereas, under Revenue practice, it may continue for life notwithstanding remarriage or cohabitation.
Some of the public comment there has been on clause 4 of the Bill, which allows for the payment of a pension to Lord Maybray-King's widow, must have left many of those we represent with the impression that the widows of Members of Parliament are extremely well provided for. While Lady Maybray-King's pension would, in any case, not be payable from the parliamentary pensions scheme, but from the Consolidated Fund, it may thus be instructive to spell out in this debate just how much the generality of widows of Members of Parliament are entitled to receive.
If a Member died, over the age of 65, with 30 years' service, his widow's pension would be £4,604. In the case of a Member who died, under the age of 65, with 14 years' service—and with an enhancement of over six and a half years—the long-term pension of his widow was less than £2,800 a year. That is the reality behind some of the public comment there has been about clause 4 of the Bill, and right hon. and hon. Members may feel that the time has now come to look at improvements in widows' benefits that would bring them more into line with those in some other schemes. In particular, a case could be made for a minimum pension based on not less than 10 years' actual and notional service. At the present time, this would provide a widow's pension of £1,800 a year which very few people here, or anywhere else, could describe as extravagant.
I am, of course, very much aware how strongly many right hon. and hon. Members feel about the payment of a year's salary as resettlement grant to Members who retire under the age of 65, but not to their colleagues, often with much longer service, who have reached that age when t hey leave the House. Resettlement grant is payable from the Consolidated Fund and not from the parliamentary pensions scheme, but the Leader of the House has been made fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue which, no doubt, others will want to speak about as the debate proceeds.
If we accept the hints given both by the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister last Thursday about the length of time left to us before this Parliament is dissolved, the Bill now before us may have two Second Readings, one before the election and one afterwards. If that proves to be the case, there will be ample time for suggestions made in this debate to be fully considered before we enact the Bill.
As of now, as chairman of the managing trustees, I am glad to have had the opportunity provided by this debate


to indicate both the restraints on the parliamentary pensions scheme and, at the same time, some of the improvements I should like to see, especially for Members' dependants. I hope that they will be given due attention by both sides of the House and that today's hopeful precepts on improving the scheme, or at least some of them, will become tomorrow's practice. It is within the power of the House to make that happen.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I wish to add only a few words to those of the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). As they have just said, the present scheme is said to be too complex. The Bill will enable us swiftly to alter arrangements and to take them through the House easily without the long debates and delays which have characterised our past legislation. That may well be, and to that extent one welcomes these new arrangements, but it implies that new arrangements are desirable and that changes will be made. In several respects, which have already been alluded to, these changes are certainly necessary.
I should like to deal principally with two items. The first is the gratuity or resettlement grant — I am not sure which to call it — at the end of one's service in Parliament. I should declare an interest in this matter because I am over 65 and shall not receive one. The gratuity or resettlement grant has never been payable to one who will receive a pension. Originally, if an hon. Member retired or disappeared from the House, he did not receive a pension until he was 65, so there was a gap when he received no parliamentary pensionable income. Therefore, it was fair that there should be some payment to tide him over until he was 65 and could receive a pension. However, as a consequence of one or two hard cases which will be present in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, first, we gave a gratuity to people younger than 65. Then one could receive one's pension at the age of 62, and now one can receive it at the age of 60. One can even receive a reduced pension and a gratuity at the age of 50. If one is over 65, however, one cannot receive a gratuity.
The reason for the arrangement to tide over those who have not reached the age of 65 has now disappeared, so it is reasonable to discuss whether those over 65 should also receive a gratuity or resettlement grant or whether the others should not because they receive a pension. There is no logic or fairness in the present position and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or anyone in his position will wish to consider that soon.
My second point relates to our contributions, which are now 9 per cent. of salary. I understand that, historically, the reason why we pay 9 per cent. of salary is because we made no or too low contributions before 1964, so we have to make up time. As has been said, the Exchequer reviewed the position and decided that its contribution and ours were unnecessarily high to maintain the fund, so it reduced its contribution from 3·3 times hon. Members' contributions to 2·3 times—a prudent financial move. But why are we left paying 9 per cent.? Should not our contribution decrease proportionately? I do not understand the logic of the present position. Will my fight hon.

Friend the Leader of the House say why we still pay 9 per cent., yet the Treasury has reduced its contribution so remarkably?
If we pass the Bill, as we undoubtedly shall, it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to make changes in our various arrangements quickly. Is that not important in view of the political situation? Admittedly, the Bill must pass through all its stages and that will take time, but if we are to have a general election, as we read in the newspapers, perhaps nothing can stop my right hon. Friend, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, introducing regulations to make all sorts of beneficent changes which will gladden the hearts of more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members who will retire before the general election.
If we continue in our Sessions and our Parliament and we go beyond 1 January next year, for many people the position will be transformed. We will then go to a salary of over £21,000, linked to the chief veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—which, of course, will enable us to be very important people. But unless we reach 1 January 1988 we will not receive that. At the end of perhaps next week, when we get rid of the Bill, it will be possible for the Treasury to introduce various regulations to improve matters.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke about widows. Is it possible to imagine that the widow of a Member who served over 20 years in this House will get a pension of £2,000 a year less than one can get from the Department of Health and Social Security if one applied over the counter? It is an absolute disgrace that this should be tolerated and even to speak of it ought to give one a sense of shock.
Such changes, which will not cost very much money—the usual plea of a Back Bencher to the Front Bench—nevertheless ought to be made in the short time that may be available to us before Parliament is dissolved.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is agreed in all parts of the House that an adequate contributory pension scheme in up-to-date form is a most necessary buttress to the independence and reputation of the House and of each hon. Member. It is largely because the Bill offers a way for amendments to be made to the scheme to keep it up to date with less delay than in the past and with much less excuse about lack of parliamentary time that I, who have the honour to be one of the managing trustees, support the Bill.
Pensions are a very dynamic topic. Already in this short debate a formidable list of invaluable changes has been carefully compiled by the Leader of the House, who has always seemed to me to be very understanding of such problems.
In supporting this new method of keeping the scheme up to date and in line with general developments in pension schemes, I would like to support those hon. Members who have already pointed out the extraordinary situation of Exchequer contributions. The trustees, under the diligent leadership of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), try their best to improve the state of the fund and if the long-term consequences were not likely to be so unfortunate, it would be comical if, with with the assistance of a buoyant


stock market, their labours were reasonably successful, and the sole result was that the Exchequer's contribution was automatically reduced.
This also destroys the opportunity that trustees ought to have of being able to say to the Leader of the House, if there is an imminent surplus because of the success of the fund, that they have been reasonably good stewards, that they have been lucky in their results, that they have more backing to enable the fund to be improved, and that Members should have better benefits in return for their substantial 9 per cent. contributions. But not a bit of it. We are not in that position at all, because there cannot be a surplus. Any improvements in the scheme are bound to decrease, in however small a degree, the Exchequer contribution.
The trustees are set an impossible task and are given no incentive, apart from a sense of duty to the Exchequer, to keep the fund buoyant. I am sure that the absurdity of the long-term position must be apparent to the Leader of the House and the Treasury Ministers and that we shall have some encouragement to hope that the position will be made a little more equitable on that score.
I should like to add my voice to those who have already said that if we are to proceed by regulation, for which there is much to be said, all hon. Members must be given an opportunity for a debate on an amendable motion. I am sure that my fellow trustees, and particularly our chairman, will not object to my pointing out that, although trustees try, as a result of their experience month by month in managing the fund and the scheme, to point out anomalies and remind the House, particularly the Leader of the House, of injustices inherent in the present scheme, the job of the trustees legally is to administer the scheme as the House has already enacted it. Anything we do over and above that is simply a bonus from such experience as may have been accumulated. Therefore, the House should not rely—I am sure it would not—upon a small body of trustees to maintain and uphold the interests of different hon. Members, almost all of whom have somewhat different circumstances.
I hope that as the Bill proceeds on its way—I wish it a speedy passage—the Leader of the House will come forward with firm and clear undertakings that the Government fully recognise an obligation to enable the House to have a full debate on an amendable motion before any regulations under the Bill are introduced.

Mr. John McWilliam: I will not detain the House for long, but I join others in giving my thanks to those trustees who have worked so hard over the years to look after our interests. I do not think that their work is suitably appreciated or lauded in the House. I am grateful and I am sure that every hon. Member present is grateful also.
I should like to thank all the officers of the Fees Office—it would be invidious to name any particular one—for the help they give Members in administering an extremely complicated scheme, vested as it is in so many different pieces of legislation. That is why I welcome the intention behind the Bill.
There are some details with which I take issue and which I hope to have an opportunity to explore in Committee. I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)

that pension debates might in future be limited to a one-and-a-half hour order some time after 1 o'clock in the morning because such debates are important.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has set out so clearly, there are anomalies. Our widows are not as well treated as widows in other schemes. Our people who retire after 65 are not as well treated, and our people who die in service or who are severely injured in service are not as well treated. I wish them to be treated to the extent allowable within the general Inland Revenue and DHSS regulations. That is certainly possible given the strength of the scheme as it exists.
There are some problems within the legislation. For instance, clause 2 states:
The Leader of the House of Commons may, with the consent of the Treasury, by regulations make provision with respect to the Fund".
We had a civil war about that once upon a time. We vote funds to the Treasury; it does not vote funds to us. Our trustees look after the scheme, not the Treasury. The Treasury has no responsibility for it. Therefore, the clause should refer to the trustees and not the Treasury. I am certain that that is not an oversight and I am equally certain that the Leader of the House did not exercise his mind sufficiently on the constitutional implications of the clause. It is important not only constitutionally but practically. If the trustees have no incentive to manage the scheme well, why should they bother? It seems that there is a major fault in the scheme.
Clause 3(2) talks about the contributions being made in accordance with the report of the Government Actuary. That seems as if we are legislating in the sense that each time one has a row with one's wife, the mother-in-law must be the judge and jury. That seems to be the effect of that provision, and it should be looked at.
The point was well made that the freedom to choose outside pensions which now exists will cause some problems for the scheme in the future. It will certainly cause me some heart-searching. I do not mind coming in at 38 years of age and bringing 20 years' reckonable service with me. I do not mind at all if that extra money—from which I can never benefit because even on my own contributions, by the time I reach 60 I shall be over the Inland Revenue limit — results in better benefits for widows of those who die in service or those who are injured in service. But I mind a great deal when the Government Actuary says, "I shall nick that and give it back to the Treasury." That, in effect, is what is proposed. I could have given that money to charity rather than to the Treasury, but that is what has been enacted.
As increasing numbers of people such as myself come into the House with a good pension scheme behind them which brings in substantial benefits, it seems to me that we should have some say in those benefits. I do not want to pay any less than anyone else, but it ought to go to a good cause, and these days it does not seem to me that the Treasury is the best cause in the world.
That brings me to the 9 per cent. actuarial contribution. I well remember those debates, because I led from the Opposition Front Bench. I remind hon. Members that the additional 1 per cent. contribution was not recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body but was part of the rakeback which the chairman of the 1922 Committee proposed — I suspect not with the permission of his Committee — in order to save the Government's face


when they decided not to implement the Top Salary Review Body's report and to stage the salary increase over a number of years instead of granting it immediately as was suggested. They decided to rake back another 1 per cent. by inserting an additional pension contribution, and tonight it is proposed that the Treasury should rake it back. I do not mind having a clean argument about salaries and pensions, but that muddied the water, and I feel strongly about that I per cent. contribution, as clearly, from what I have said, I am paying far too much already.
I welcome the opportunity to get the Bill into Committee. I think that we can do something with it. The way in which we treat our widows and the way in which we treat those who die in service—particularly given the number who have died in the last six months—as well as those who are injured in the service of the House because of the way in which we choose to operate does not make the House a particularly civilised place for which to work.
I do not mind working such long hours, but if I keeled over tomorrow I would like to think that my family would at least be well taken care of. At present that is not the case. I therefore look forward to taking the Bill into Committee and I look forward to the opportunity sensibly to amend it once it is there.

Mr. Brynmor John: I shall detain the House for only a short while. Although this appears to be a constitutional Bill at first sight, it is not merely such a Bill. I want to voice my suspicion about anything that is unamendable. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider how amendments can be made because a "take it or leave it" option puts the House in a most invidious position.
The Bill allows us the opportunity to be rid of anomalies. No one here is after a gold-plated scheme. However, with the help of the funds in the scheme and the contribution of 9 per cent.—a very high figure indeed—that we make historically as contributors to the pension scheme, we deserve a reasonably good scheme. However, we certainly deserve a scheme which is rid of anomalies before the Bill is enacted.
I want to concentrate on the 60/20 rule. It is the greatest nonsense that if someone chooses to retire at or after his 60th birthday—which may fortunately be the day after a general election — having qualified after serving 20 years, he can draw his unabated pension in full. However, if he is faced with the choice of retiring at 58 or 59 and decides that another Parliament is not for him, he will either suffer an abatement of pension or, if he wants to wait for it in full, he will have to wait a number of years which may be beyond his financial means. Nor do I see why a person defeated in that age band should suffer any difference of treatment. Frankly, I believe that neither person is likely to get employment again.
I want the Leader of the House to look at this matter sympathetically. The Leader of the House was described as seeming to be sympathetic. I thought that he had a flinty tone about him tonight. I hope that that is simply role playing and the Leader of the House was merely playing "Biffen the hard man" rather than the real Leader of the House. If the pension is not drawn until 60, there is no additional charge to the fund and there is no difference

between someone retiring at 58 or 59 or after the age of 60. Such a small worthwhile benefit is relatively free of cost and would improve the scheme, ridding it of one anomaly—widows are another anomaly—and that would make the scheme beneficial to the contributors. After all, if we are expecting people to pay 9 per cent. of their salary towards a contributory pension scheme, at the very least they should look forward to retiring in comfort comparable to those in outside industry without having to suffer a cut in pension as a penalty.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): It is a pleasure to reply to this useful debate. After my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked a series of questions and made a series of observations about the Bill, to which I will do my best to reply.
My great-uncle was the hon. Member in the Liberal interest for Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley. I believe that this is the first time that I have followed the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney in a debate of this kind, although I have followed his colleague in Tower Hamlets, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). It is a delight to pay an incidental tribute to my great-uncle as well as to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney spelt out concisely and neatly the antithesis before us, in terms of the complexity of the legislation and the disadvantages of the simplicity inherent in regulations. He was joined in those observations later by his hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the procedure upon which we would embark under the Bill and in particular to his questions about the way in which we might handle these matters, assuming that the Bill is enacted. I want to put a proposition before the House which I hope will act as a vehicle for our debates in Committee.
The Bill also provides for consultation before regulations are introduced, but we shall consider carefully whether we can devise arrangements more like those for determining the pay of Members of Parliament, in which Members have an opportunity to debate an amendable motion before final proposals are introduced. That was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am delighted to respond in this way. He and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) mentioned Lady Maybray-King and drew attention to the fact that some of the criticisms that have been made outside the House about that provision were ill-founded. I am grateful to both right hon. Gentlemen for sustaining the proposition in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney mentioned the Top Salaries Review Body and changes that might be made to the provisions of the scheme and the arrangements for Members, but, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Government do not believe that it is an appropriate time to amend the scheme. We have heard suggestions for improving it, all of which can be referred to the TSRB when it next considers Members' pensions. I should say that substantial improvements tend to carry substantial costs.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney mentioned anomalies relating especially to Members retiring at or about the age of 60. He mentioned the pension for a Member who retires, with 20 years' service, between the ages of 57 and 59 and suggested that that should be paid as though he had reached the age of 60. In 1984, substantial improvements were made in the pensions for that group. Their pensions were abated by a smaller percentage than the full actuarial reduction. Hon. Members also addressed the issue of lowering the general retirement age to 60. It was considered by the TSRB, most recently in its report on pensions in 1983, but it did not recommend a general reduction.

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend's point was not that the full pension should be paid at the age of 57, 58 or 59, but that if the Member retiring at that age chose not to draw his pension until he was 60 he was taking advantage of the 60–20 rule.

Mr. Brooke: There is a hazard in our getting too deeply drawn into the details of the scheme, given the fact that it is not the purpose of the Bill to change the rules at this juncture.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney asked another question about which I can give some information to the House. He said that Members of Parliament aged between 60 and 65 with at least 20 years' service who retired received pensions while those who lost an election did not. That was changed in 1984, and I am delighted to say that, after the age of 60, it makes no difference whether a Member was defeated in an election or retired.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and others mentioned the resettlement grants for those aged over 65. As they recognised, resettlement grants are not part of the pensions scheme and the arrangements for determining their size and the qualifications for receiving them are not affected by the Bill. They are fixed by resolution of the House following recommendations from the TSRB, and we have no plans to change the rules in the near future. I heard what was said in the debate, but those who are aged over 65 receive a lump sum and a pension from the pensions scheme. No doubt that influenced the decision that there would be no resettlement grants as well.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): Does my hon. Friend know the amount of the pension that they get?

Sir Anthony Kershaw: And the amount of the lump sum?

Mr. Brooke: The amount will depend on the individual hon. Member's circumstances.

Mr. McWilliam: It might help the hon. Members for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) and for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) if I tell them that an hon. Member may commute up to one third of his pension as a lump sum when he retires. However, the lump sum is not there as a matter of right and is not built into the scheme.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: What is all this about a lump sum for people over the age of 65? I have not heard of this before. If my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) wants to know the kind of pension that one gets after 32 years of service, I can tell him. It is about £9,000 a year.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should not have taken his speech out of order in replying to the debate. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney raised the matter of contributions and the amounts.
I shall respond in general to the question about the report by the Government Actuary. The Government Actuary's latest report was published in November and shows that the Exchequer is still making additional contributions to eliminate the deficiency in the fund that was created mainly by earlier Acts which gave credit for service before 1964, for which no contributions were paid. Therefore, there is no question of the fund being in surplus. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke about that.
I realise that it is important for the House to have clear information about the state of the fund and the Government Actuary's report. If there are ways in which we can improve the transmission of that information, I shall be delighted to enter into correspondence with hon. Members about how this might be achieved.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe asked a number of questions about methods by which the scheme might be improved. As I said earlier, that is not the substance and subject of the Bill. However, one has to ask that question in the context of various questions to the TSRB. He said that we should be able to secure better benefits if the fund's investments are working as well as we have cause to believe them to be. Of course. that works both ways, and I take it that hon. Members would not wish to see benefits reduced when investments do less well. Under the present system, the Exchequer bears all that risk and that underlies the nature of the Exchequer's contribution.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe conjectured about the date of the election. I cannot shed any light on that, nor can I speculate about the pace with which we can carry this legislation through. The legislation is useful and I hope that it will be carried through promptly. I also have a family association with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud in that he and my father were LCC members for my constituency. I am conscious that my hon. Friend will not fight the next election. One's fear, when one hears hon. Friends and Opposition Members speak in the Chamber, is that one may be hearing them for the last time. I am delighted that I have had an opportunity to speak in this debate.
The issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud fall into the general area of those raised by other hon. Members, in that improvements to the arrangements for the scheme are not essentially dealt with in this Bill.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainright), as a managing trustee, referred to contributions and the hon. Member for Blaydon and others thanked the trustees and the Fees Office, as do I. The hon. Member for Blaydon introduced the civil war into the debate. Part of my constituency played a role vis-a-vis the rest of the nation with which it is not always associated in the light of subsequent events. I was somewhat puzzled as to whether the Government Actuary or the Treasury was supposed to be the mother-in-law.

Mr. McWilliam: They are interchangeable.

Mr. Brooke: One cannot characterise the Treasury as some kind of impersonal force when Lords Commissioners


of the Treasury sit in the House and are personally responsible. The hon. Member for Blaydon also referred to the 9 per cent. contribution, as he did when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal spoke earlier.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoke of particular elements and conditions and although some of the matters raised have been outside the ambit of the Bill as presently constituted it is helpful to have those observations on record so that the debate becomes a quarry from which we can subsequently obtain data.

Mr. Jack Dormand: Perhaps the Minister will explain in what way the Bill has been helpful. We had a very depressing speech from the Leader of the House and that of the Treasury Minister has been even more depressing. They have made it clear that they are not prepared to take on board suggestions and proposals put forward from both sides of the House. One appreciates the Minister's argument that certain issues are not matters for him or for the present Bill, but matters for the Top Salaries Review Body or matters for consideration at another time and perhaps with another Bill. Will he come clean and admit that nothing will be done in Committee to change the purpose of the Bill which, as the Leader of the House has said, is merely to bring about a change in the mechanics?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it perfectly clear, as does the Bill, that we are changing the mechanics, but in view of the complexity into which we have got ourselves it would be a mistake to continue to engage in primary legislation to tidy up that complexity.
The hon. Member for Blaydon queried Members' rights in relation to lump sums: I acknowledge that the lump sum figure is secured by commutation, but there is a right that such commutation can take place.
I wish to deal with one matter that has not been raised in the House. There have been occasions in the past when there has been an interaction between tax legislation and Members' allowances and benefits, but it has not always been identified and when it has been noticed thereafter there has been distress that it was not recognised earlier. I wish, therefore, to draw attention to a proposal in the Budget to limit the maximum lump sum that can be paid out on retirement to those joining schemes after 17 March

this year. The proposal will affect Members of Parliament in exactly the same way as other employees. It is not relevant to the Bill before us and there will be ample opportunity to debate it when the House considers schedule 5 of the Finance Bill and when it subsequently considers regulations bringing the parliamentary scheme into line with the provisions of the Finance Bill. I repeat that it does not apply to anybody who is a Member now. It relates only to those who come in after 17 March. However, I thought it appropriate and sensible that this should be put on the record so that it will be known to everybody when we deal with the Committee stage of both of the Bills.
It has become clear during the debate that the central purpose of the Bill is to improve the mechanics of the arrangements. I am delighted that we are able to provide a pension for Lady Maybray-King, and for the support that I received from the Opposition Benches for bringing this in. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary and other Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by or under that Act to be paid out of money so provided into the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund;
(b) the payment out of the Consolidation Fund of—

(i) such amounts as are required under that Act to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of transfer values paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(ii) interest required under that Act to be paid on those amounts; and
(iii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums required to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund under Mr. Speaker King's Retirement Act 1971 or section 27 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and

(c) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the order has not been dealt with in the normal manner because it has not been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Is it right and proper that we should consider the order before it has gone through the normal procedure?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order to debate it.

Mr. Hunt: I understand that the order is due for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments tomorrow. The order was laid on 6 April and could not be considered by the Committee at its sitting on 7 April, and there has been no sitting since. The order has an operative date of 1 May. I am happy to give the assurance that should the Committee bring any aspect of this order to the attention of the House when it considers it tomorrow, the usual channels will consider the matter further.
Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, which received Royal Assent on 5 March, empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to the British Coal Corporation towards eligible expenditure relating to costs falling in certain financial years of the corporation. In any years in which grant is to be paid, the Act requires an order, approved by the House, specifying the kinds of expenditure for which grant is to be paid and the limits on that grant. Such orders specify only kinds of expenditure which fall within one or more of the descriptions in schedule 2 to the Act. The Act has thus introduced a flexible regime, enabling support to be given towards the corporation's restructuring costs, with the rate and coverage of support being specified under annual orders in the light of circumstances at the time.
The Government announced to Parliament on 11 March objectives for British Coal which had been agreed with the chairman, Sir Robert Haslam. These have already been published in the Official Report. The Government believe that these objectives represent demanding but attainable aims, and that working within this agreed framework will provide long-term security and prosperity to British Coal and the greatest benefit to the nation.
The first draft order under section 3 is consistent with the objectives. It provides for 75 per cent. grant support towards a broad range of costs associated with restructuring to be incurred by British Coal in 1987–88, including costs of redundancy and early retirement, changes of work and place of employment, retraining for those who are to leave or have left the corporation through redundancy or incapacity and costs associated with the promotion of new employment opportunities. It also provides for generous grant towards the maintenance of existing arrangements for the provision of concessionary coal to former employees, who have reached retirement age, or their widows.
The order begins the process of transferring to British Coal full responsibility for terms and conditions which, for

most industries and employers, are matters for the employer and borne by him, consistent with the transition to commercial viability in the industry, whilst enabling the Government to continue to meet the larger part of those costs during the process of that transition.
I should emphasise that the order does not seek to transfer to British Coal the burden of continuing costs associated with past restructuring. Continuing benefits to those who took redundancy before 28 March 1987 under the redundant mineworkers' payment scheme will, as in the past, be funded directly by the Government. Similarly, British Coal will continue to be eligible, under section 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1967, section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 and section 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, for grants towards the costs of premature and enhanced pensions, transfer payments and other benefits in relation to men already qualifying.
Nor does the order seek to transfer to British Coal more of the costs which are associated with restructuring in the current financial year than it could reasonably hope to meet. The Government remain fully committed to providing the finance necessary to support British Coal's transition to viability. The 75 per cent. grant support proposed for 1987–88 is generous. The increased costs to British Coal arising from the establishment of its own redundancy arrangements is balanced by the extended availability of grant in other areas which were not previously eligible for non-deficit grant or where the level of that grant was previously limited to 50 per cent.
Over the past two years British Coal has made massive progress towards the fundamental restructuring of the industry, concentrating its activities on more highly capitalised and efficient coal faces, enabling the same amount of coal to be produced with fewer faces, fewer men and lower costs. The success of this policy has been dramatically demonstrated by the outstanding growth in productivity, with the weekly productivity record being broken no fewer than 15 times during the course of the 1986–87 financial year. Prospects for the industry and all those who work in it are being transformed. The draft order before us will play a part in that continuing transformation and will, I hope, be welcomed by all hon. Members who have the interests of the coal industry at heart.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: In introducing the order, the Minister tried to explain why it has been introduced. I know by speaking to them that some of his hon. Friends were a little puzzled that we should be debating the order, because it is not long since the House debated the Coal Industry Act 1987.
The Minister has explained that we are debating an order which relates to the restructuring of grants. He has explained again that he is satisfied about the financial structure and the targets that have been laid down for British Coal. He is well satisfied, even in terms of the Coal Industry Act 1987, that they are generous. We expressed doubts about that at the time, and I still have doubts.
The schedule to the order has six important headings on various types of expenditure. Head 1 is "Redundancy and early retirement". Head 2 is
Changes of work and place of employment".
Head 4 is "Concessionary Coal", to which the Minister referred. I am suprised that in his opening remarks he did not deal with heads 5 and 6, which relate to retraining and


new employment. Those are in the schedule. I am not trying to chastise the Minister; the Opposition regard the order as important.
The four sections on redundancy and early retirement are important to the men who will be affected. I do not think that the Minister will dispute that fact. He made it easier for me to make some of my comments, because he referred to the state of the industry. The hon. Gentleman must tell us what contraction of manpower is expected in the near future. It is generally recognised that there has been a massive contraction since 1984 and I have been informed that the average age of men in the industry is about 34. Mining must have virtually the youngest labour force in the country.
There have been substantial productivity increases, and they must be welcomed, but the Minister must concede that the 15 new productivity records set in the past year surely mean that we are producing by far the cheapest coal in Europe. As some miners have been performing so well, will the labour force be free from further contraction or does the Minister expect further calls on expenditure on redundancy and early retirement?
The Minister took care to say that we were not talking about the future, but miners and the people of this country want to know about the future. I have often said on behalf of the Opposition that the industry belongs to the people; it is a source of national wealth.
We have tried to get the Government to ensure the welfare and health of the miners and their industry. I have tried, particularly during energy Question Time, to press the Government about imported coal. They are giving the nod to about 9 million tonnes of imported coal and they cannot claim that that is in the spirit of the free market or competition, because most of that coal is being dumped here at below production cost.
At my annual meeting with my local farmers—the three-hour meeting turned out to be something of a seminar — they complained about cheap food being dumped in this country at below production cost. They said that that was unfair and that it was harming their industry. They were saying the same things about their industry that we say about the coal industry. As some of those farmers are liable to be Conservative supporters, I asked them whether they wanted to address their complaints to the Government. But that is by the way.
We must ensure that manpower in the coal industry does not contract further as a result of the distorted overseas market. I was told today that due to the pound going up in value from about $1·52 to its present level, another cost of £3 per tonne will be put on the coal industry. We could considerably extend this debate if we considered what happened in 1981 and the effect that the pound had in destroying a large slice of British industry. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the productivity record of the miners but a statement on the effects of the pound and overseas markets would be welcomed by both sides of the House.
With regard to redundancy and early retirement, I wish to discuss licensed mines. That question was discussed in my constituency at the weekend. I should explain that, as a result of a takeover bid, about 110 miners in licensed mines face redundancy. It has been suggested to the miners that they will not be covered by the National Coal Board's or British Coal's redundancy terms because the mines are

not wholly owned subsidiaries. However, these mines are licensed by the NCB or British Coal. Indeed, there are written terms — a contract — under the coal industry conciliation scheme regarding such mines.
I find this matter a bit perturbing, to say the least. Is it not a fact that a royalty is paid to the NCB or British Coal for the production of coal from private mines? Indeed, we heard lobbies from the Conservative Benches on behalf of private mine owners. I wonder what some of those hon. Members have to say about the problem in my constituency. We are discussing the prospects for miners who have perhaps a few years or many years service. I must tell my hon. Friends that, although I am dealing with this matter on a constituency basis, I believe that it is something that may confront them.
In the various coal debates, we have heard a great deal about the virtues of private ownership and privatisation. The example that I have given is small scale, but it means a hell of a lot for the 110 miners and those other people who may be involved in similar closures in other parts of the country. Is it a good advert for privatisation? Is it a good advert for private mine owners when the miners employed in such mines find themselves in this position? It is appropriate to this order that the Minister should investigate this matter. Indeed, the Minister has a duty and responsibility to do so.
We hear a lot about human rights nowadays, and I am talking about fine decent people. Such people have rights and the Minister has a responsibility not only to investigate this matter, but to try to resolve the problem. I do not expect to be given all the answers tonight, but I am raising the matter now because I do not believe it is something of local significance, but I believe that it could easily affect all the coal-producing areas of the United Kingdom.
I intend to restrict my remarks, although it is tempting to make a longer contribution. The order is important, not trivial. Heads 5 and 6 of the schedule deal with retraining and new employment. The order deals with the allocation of financial resources, so it is appropriate that, however short the debate, the Minister provides the House with an update on what is happening and what is likely to happen.
Like other hon. Members, I receive press releases from British Coal Enterprise Ltd. I bear in mind what the chairman of British Coal said to our Select Committee.
The Opposition do not intend to oppose the order, because of its nature and purpose and because of the way in which it allocates finance. We attach importance to the order because it affects the financial prospects of many people who were employed in the industry and many people who will not be employed in the industry in the years to come.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) spoke about the treatment of private sector miners. I wonder about the difference between the public and private sectors in relation to the expenditure listed in the schedule to the order. It seems that miners in the public sector are treated more generously than those who work in the opencast or small private mines. However, I come to a different conclusion. The hon. Member for Midlothian spoke of the rights of those who work in the private and small mines sector. They have rights, but surely the most important right is the right to work in an industry that flourishes and expands.


If we were able to remove the restriction on that sector— in particular the restriction on the number of men employed in each mine—perhaps some of the private companies that unfortunately have to make men redundant would expand and make more provision for the better treatment of employees.
I have received correspondence from private small mine owners in the north-east saying that they would be willing and able to expand employment if that restriction were lifted.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I was talking about the victims of a takeover bid. The private mines are licensed by British Coal. Under the conciliation agreements, the private mines have responsibilities. Private mine owners enter a contract. They should honour it and look after their men.

Mr. Fallon: I accept that. I was trying to say that it would be easier for the private mining sector to honour contracts and to expand if it were not limited to employing 30 men and not governed by bureaucratic and restrictive licensing systems which inhibit development.
I have only one question to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the order. I perfectly understand why the costs involved in past restructuring of the industry should not now be laid at the door of British Coal. Presumably, for the present restructuring costs, the expenditure listed in the schedule is the expenditure that we would normally expect a commercially viable and profitable industry to sustain from its own resources, out of its own profits, rather than rely on taxpayer grant to subsume. If that is so, what is the aim of the percentage figure in paragraph 4(b)? Is it the aim gradually to reduce that percentage figure to zero as the Coal Board heads for break-even and eventual profitability.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I should like to make several points about the order. Perhaps it is strange for me to speak in a coal industry debate, but there is coal-mining in the southern part of my constituency. I am proud to say that my grandfather went down a pit at the age of 14, so I am not entirely ignorant of the industry.
The order is a commentary on the present state of the coal industry. There has been a massive decline in the number of people employed in it. In south Wales alone, the number of people employed underground has declined from 31,000 in 1970 to 12,000 in 1986. There has been a massive decline of 6,500 in the past 18 months alone.
I remember visiting the town of Maesteg—where my relatives lived—frequently in the 1950s and 1960s. Ten thousand miners worked in that community. The order is a sad commentary on the decline of the industry. The coalfied communities have been badly hit. The order gives some means of redress after the enormous job losses in those communities.
Reference has been made to the expenditure headings. We in the alliance are interested in the changes in the type of work that we hope will take place in the coalfield communities. The provision on concessionary coal is helpful, because many families in the coalfields have suffered greatly as a result of mineworkers sustaining injuries. No doubt widows and others who live in those communities will benefit from that part of the order. Head 5, on retraining, is a move in the right direction. The

problem is that there have been cuts in retraining, certainly in the part of the south Wales coalfield with which I am familiar. Retraining is extremely important when people are leaving the industry and looking for new employment.
New employment will be and is at present being stimulated by British Coal Enterprise Ltd., an initiative that we support, but we must ask whether the £27 million identified in the order is adequate to solve some of the problems in the coalfield communities now. There is massive unemployment in some of those communities—25 per cent. in some areas. There is 20 per cent. unemployment in Ystradgynlais, the coalmining part of my constituency. There is a feeling that there has not been enough redress in terms of job creation in those communities.

Mr. David Hunt: It may assist the hon. Gentleman if I point out that the £27,700,000 limit is merely to cover the expenditure specified under head 4—concessionary coal —and does not relate to heads 5 and 6.

Mr. Livsey: I stand corrected. However, if I may now make a point that I would have made later, I should like to ask the Minister how the allocation of funds is broken down between the six heads of expenditure contained in the order. Will he give us some information on that? I stand corrected on item 4 and the figure of £27 million, but what expenditure will take place under the other headings?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Less.

Mr. Livsey: Expenditure for redundancy, retraining and new employment is important. However, for the coalfield communities, linked to that is the general investment policy of British Coal. There is too much of a dichotomy of interests in the energy policy of this country. Decisions have been made about the size of the British coal industry and the manipulation of different sources of energy, such as oil and nuclear power, and the mix between our different sources of energy.
There is no doubt that the British coal industry has to some extent been run down. However, I welcome especially the proposed investment in the Margam mine in south Wales, which is a small start to try to invest more in deep mining. Certainly, we welcome the attitude of the National Union of Mineworkers in south Wales in accepting those proposals for six-day working. I know that that is controversial, but it will certainly result in greater productivity. I hope that that will be the forerunner of more investment in deep mining in the south Wales coalfields.
Will the Minister also advise us how the order will affect the open-cast sector, which appears to he expanding? The Energy Select Committee reported that it wished to see expansion of open-cast mining from 15 million tonnes to 18 million tonnes per annum. However, that is not necessarily in the best interests of those areas where deep mines have been closed. Indeed, one could say that that is a policy for unemployment, because open-cast mining employs fewer people and is causing a great deal of damage to the environment and to the communities—

Mr. Patrick Mc Loughlin: rose—

Mr. Livsey: I shall give way in a moment.
It is also inhibiting investment in those communities in other enterprises and industries that would otherwise enter those areas. Open-cast mining creates a bad environment


for the encouragement of the new industries which, perhaps, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is trying to encourage.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that open-cast coal is important for some mines because of its high chlorine content? If coal from open-cast mines was not mixed with the deep-mined coal, many underground mine workers would be put out of a job because they would not be able to sell that coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Mr. Livsey: We must achieve a balance between open-cast and deep mining. The amount of open-cast mining that is proposed at present is too great, to the detriment of deep mining and of the jobs in those coalfields. There is clearly a need for open-cast mining but not at the level of 18 million tonnes that is proposed by the Energy Select Committee.

Mr. John Watson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to strike a balance in a debate such as this, but is he not coming near to saying that because open-cast mining employs fewer people, so is endemically more efficient, it should be discouraged on economic grounds?

Mr. Livsey: I have not said that we should abolish open-cast mining overnight or anything of the sort; the open-cast sector is too large and has a detrimental effect on coalfield communities by inhibiting new industries, particularly high-tech industries which require a clean atmosphere, because of the amount of dust that it raises.
On the whole, the order provides funds for the industry, so it is welcome, but I doubt whether sufficient resources are being allocated to solve the problems of the coalfield communities. We welcome certain aspects of the order, but the resources may be inadequate to service it.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The order comes before the House at an opportune moment, because if the newspapers are to be believed, this may well be our last debate on the coal industry in this Parliament.
The debate provides us with a good opportunity to look back and compare the policies of the Government and the Opposition towards this vital industry. The Opposition made a concerted attempt to do the most grievous damage to it through their silence during the strike and their carping criticism of every piece of legislation that we have introduced to help the industry. It is a stain on their record and it will long be remembered by those who depend on the industry.
I invite the House to compare that with our policies, which have achieved record investment, leading to record productivity time and again. Month after month we read of new records of productivity being achieved. That has been linked with massive redundancy benefits for those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of restructuring which have helped them rebuild their lives and bring new life into the coalfields, and with the creation of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. — one of the most successful job creation endeavours.
Every time we raise the subject of BCEL in the House there is carping criticism from the Opposition. Either it is doing too little or it is not serious. Yet only last week BCEL announced that it had met its job creation target for 1986–87 of 10,000 new jobs. If that company continues to

develop 10,000 jobs from nothing in three years, it is clear how quickly it will bring new life into our coalfields. What great progress it has already made to that objective.
One aspect of BCEL accounts for its success more than any other. Obviously, the Government's commitment to provide it with the money that it needs is most important. It knows that it can underpin any good project which is brought forward in the sure knowledge that Government money will be provided to help with its development. The figures show clearly that the most extraordinary additionality is achieved. For every £1 that BCE invests in a project, nearly £7 of other money is also invested. That is a particularly successful and important criterion in job creation.
But the one aspect that accounts for the success of BCEL above all is the hands-on help it gives to people setting up their business for the first time. Ministers need help to set up new business endeavours, because they have not done it before. Wherever there are hands-on help agencies, the job creation success rate has been better, as has the business survival rate. BCEL is developing an enviable record for helping and nurturing new businesses into creation, prosperity and long-term survival.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether this hands-on help might not be extended. Many Conservative Members have assisted in the past few months in the creation of urban development corporations in areas of dereliction where industry has declined and where a major effort is needed to pull together all the strands of policy from central Government to local government and tying them in with the private sector. Many of the coalfield communities, particularly in Yorkshire, are well adapted to a similar technique being applied.
When we are returned in the new Parliament with a renewed, perhaps an increased, mandate, I ask that we turn our attention to developing the work of BCEL by adopting and perhaps adapting the techniques of the urban developments corporations. Those who live and work in the coalfield communities have no doubt about one thing above all — that this Government are their future. This Government have given them the money, organisation and determination to give British Coal a successful future. When they contrast this with the mindless militancy of the Opposition, they all know where their future lies.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Listening to the previous speech, I could not help thinking that the election had started. I do not think the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) will mind me saying that I thought he jumped the gun with great style. He has probably rehearsed that spontaneous speech a dozen times.
We tend to for get that this is a debating Chamber and that we should try to pick up points made by our colleagues. As this is likely to be the last occasion on which I will address the House, being a miner, it provides me with a good finale. I would like to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that this order is a commentary— I think a very sad one—on the decline of an industry which, in spite of what the hon. Member for Elmet said, has not been the success story that he portrayed. I will give one or two reasons why before I touch on one or two heads of expenditure.
I am the second oldest mining Member of Parliament. As you would know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I came into this House there were about 29 mining Members of


Parliament. Without preaching or seeking to persuade people that we are as good as we think we are, I think that those 29 Members were an adornment and played a very useful part. I am not now speaking of myself, but of those who were more illustrious than me. We provided top-quality men who brought practical experience here.
When the next Parliament convenes, without a shadow of doubt under a Labour Government, there will be only about 12 mining Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will be among the most senior of those 12. The decline has happened, as it has happened under this Government. because the best interests of the country have not always been merged with the best interests of the mining industry.
One needs a computer to follow one's own interests in the House nowadays, but a statistic provided in an answer to a question last week showed that the total number of people employed in the mining industry now is down to about 110,000. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor gave the graphic illustration of a town in south Wales where there were once about 10,000 miners and where there are now only about 12.
When I became a Labour candidate in 1961, Lancashire had two members on the national executive of the NUM. There was one member on the executive for every 20,000 members and part thereof. Lancashire is now merged with the western region and is probably down to about 7,000 members.
I apologise to the Minister for missing his speech. I thought it was to be made at the time scheduled and I should have anticipated that it would be earlier. He did not speak very long so I missed the few comments he made. I know that the Minister would have given a eulogy about the order and the various heads of expenditure. I am bound to tell him that since the Government have been in charge and since the debacle of the miners' strike—I do not want to go into that because I had a particular point of view on it—we have lost about 40,000 miners.
If I hear Ministers telling me how they are helping the mining industry, I want them to tell me that they are helping by saying that they will provide the new coal-fired power stations that I believe are desperately needed. We know that the Government are hanging fire on that. I want them to give the mining industry the same sort of attention they give to the nuclear power lobby.
I made a statement in the House the other week which was misunderstood because, not being a classical scholar, I had to give a more homely metaphor. Those who have a working class background will know that there is a working class game known as brag in which each player has three cards. It is a simple idea; a sort of poor man's poker. The lowest hand on which one could hope to win the kitty and persuade one's opponents that one has a good hand is two twos, known as a pair of deuces.

Mr. Skinner: One can have seven high if one is smart enough.

Mr. McGuire: My hon. Friend must play a different school to us. However, there is a saying, "He is bragging on a pair of deuces." Why did I use that expression for the nuclear power lobby? If one reads the history of the promotion of nuclear power, even when the late Fred Lee was the Minister of Power in the 1964 Government, one got the impression that nuclear power was going to be so

abundant and cheap that it would not pay one to meter it. It was suggested that it was the greatest invention known to man. Our own people believed in that. The history of nuclear power has read like a fairy tale. The Government are persuading us again that it is the greatest thing that ever happened, ignoring the signs of great dark clouds on the horizon. Yet the coal industry is having to battle with one hand tied behind its back. That is why, when people promote nuclear power as distinct from coal-generated electricity, I say that they were bragging on a pair of deuces.
I shall now deal with exports. In my constituency I have the company that is the leading exporter of mining manufacturing machinery in the country. I am pleased to say that I was there on the day that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian was presented with a miner's lamp, suitably inscribed, when he opened the test bed that subjects machines that are sold all over the world—to China and elsewhere — to simulated weights, heights, powers and stresses that I do not think they will meet even in the mines. It is one of the jewels in our industrial crown. I wonder what the export record is for nuclear power. I think that we gave one power station away once and I cannot see us doing much different in the future.
That is the sort of thing to which I want the Government to pay attention. In spite of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Elmet—I do not know whether he will go into his mining areas—I think that he will be subject to some critical examination. He will need to sing a slightly different tune because the miners will say, "Here we have a Government giving us all these wonderful things but we are declining at a rate of knots."

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that the majority of decent miners understand clearly that their future lies in an industry supported by the Government through investment, a Government who are determined to stand up to the militancy, which is the industry's biggest threat.

Mr. McGuire: That is all very well. I believe that the Minister referred to the increase in productivity and the records being set daily by the miners. I tried to couple that with an action that the Government have deliberately taken. I am not sure of the precise technical term, but it was designed to encourage companies to switch to coal burning. I am not sure how long that lasted, but it was cut off. If I were to question the enthusiasm of the Minister and one of his most devoted supporters over what they were doing for the coal mining industry, I would ask, "Why has that not been continued?"
Almost every week the Minister bombards us with the success of the mining industry, and I am pleased to hear it. He tells us how company X or Y has increased its profits, that it is marvellous and that it has gone over from oil burning to coal burning. A positive way of encouraging that is to keep the scheme going, but I believe that it is about to finish. Therefore, when people tell me what wonderful things they have done I like to marry that to practical realities.
I also welcome the proposals in the order. No one with any sense would oppose them. One of the headings is "Concessionary Coal". In the past, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, I have mounted odd rearguard actions — futile though they were — to draw attention to some of the cruel anomalies on concessionary


coal, and how they limited the giving of concessionary coal to widows of mineworkers, some of whom had worked in the mines all their lives. It often depended on the coroner's signature or the pneumoconiosis medical panel. Many widows were confused by the fact that the coroner's certificate said "industrial disease", as that was the pathologist's recommendation, whereas the pneumoconiosis medical panel — on whose advice the Coal Board would give concessionary coal—said "natural causes". It is almost impossible to convince a widow of that when her husband has worked many years in the mining industry—sometimes a lifetime—and has been in receipt of an industrial disease payment. I dealt with many such cases when I was pit secretary. There were buckets of sympathy but no practical help. It is impossible to say, "I am sorry. That is how the rules are defined and you cannot get concessionary coal." Some of these people now live alongside others who qualify even though they served a much shorter period in the pits, but good luck to them!
Many of these things were symbolic of the fact that the work of these miners was appreciated. Naturally I welcome anything that will continue such concessions. The problem of such people will gradually reduce because anno domini will ensure that they die off. I shall not flog this to death, but I wish there was something in the order to give them solace and comfort, particularly as this is my last chance to say a few words on this subject.
I end as I began. This is a commentary on the decline of a once great industry. I doubt whether it will again be great in terms of its size in its heyday. When I first entered the House, we talked about whether coal production should be 190 million tonnes or 220 million tonnes. For many of us the Ark of the Covenant was the forecast of Dr. Idris Jones, who, in the early 1960s, said that the coal mining industry should be gearing itself to 250 million tonnes.
A late colleague, Dick Kelly, the Member for Don Valley, used to hammer the Minister regularly about this plan, but it has continued to decline. Certain events have hastened the industry's decline, but I would rather hear Ministers say, "This is the way in which we shall get it back on its feet. We shall give it a proper place in our energy policy because compared with nuclear it is easily and outstandingly the best. We will not leave for future generations any of the problems that we are storing up through nuclear generation." If there is one more whiff of a Chernobyl all the forecasts for nuclear power in this country and elsewhere will go out the window. That has been the response in other countries, but we have not seen the light.
If the Government were really keen on promoting the coal industry and intent on doing what the bright young Member for Elmet will say when he goes around his constituency bragging on a pair of deuces—if I may use that term again — the Minister would tell us what positive steps the Government intend to take to restore the fortunes of the coal industry. If the Minister acted in that way, he would be heard with much greater conviction.

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be very brief, as other hon. Members have been before me.
I want to pick up on one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) about privatisation of the collieries and mines. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Darlington has ever worked in a mine, never mind a private mine. In fact, I doubt that very much indeed. He does not know what he is talking about. He is basing his comments upon textbooks. If he considered the matter practically, or if he had ever seen a private mine working, he would not be so keen on them. I have worked in such a mine. Actually I worked for one. The benevolence of the National Coal Board in those days meant that the board lent out its craftsmen to private mines because those mines could not afford to keep them. We helped out. We put those mines in order when the inspector of mines came down. Those mines could not keep within the regulations unless they had assistance from the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board had to hold money back to ensure that the reinstatements were completed after those mines had abandoned their dependence on oil.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Darlington should consider the history of the industry and discover that the mines were nationalised purely and simply because the private mines could neither produce sufficient material nor provide the working conditions that were becoming necessary. As a result of the war, the Government realised that the products of the private mines would be inadequate, and that is why they were nationalised.
If people believe that open-casting is primarily a sweetener for deep-mined coal, they must also believe that pigs may fly. That story was put about simply to get open-casting expanded. Open-casting was carried out simply because it was more economical, less manpower intensive, and a great deal of coal could to extracted. That method created environmental problems that we are still living with in my area after 30 years. If people want open-casting they can have it. Please do not send it our way, because we do not want any more.
We want new industries in the area to make up for the old industry that has disappeared. I am not so naive as to believe that the collieries that have closed will reopen. However, I hope for a future in which the existing collieries will expand. We shall find that that will be necessary, because the Government are making the same mistake as the Labour Government in the 1960s over the closure of the collieries. We had to return to the position later and realise that a mistake had been made.
If we consider the amount of oil and gas taken and used from the North Sea at the moment in terms of coal equivalent, it is possible to measure the amount of coal we shall need in future, unless the Government are prepared to enter into the full-scale use of nuclear power stations or, if they run down the British coal mining industry, to import more coal. There is no other way for the Government to act.
British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is doing an excellent job, but we should put the jobs that it has created into perspective. The Minister said that 10,000 jobs have been created, but where are they? I know of six in my constituency — one is in a pub and another is in

prefabrication. The irony is that the biggest part of that prefabrication work is ordered from British Coal. We have got six jobs in return for 6,400 jobs lost, so we must put the figures into perspective. The company is doing excellent work, and I would encourage it all the way because it must continue, but let us not run away with the idea that it will replace every job that was lost; it will not.
People are right to point out the massive redundancy payments that have been received by many grateful mine workers, but let us not forget what they were. The were given not out of the generosity and goodness of heart of the Government or British Coal; they were used to buy out jobs, because that was the easiest way to run down the industry. It has been done by Governments of both parties. I do not say that this Government must take all the blame, because the Labour Government also had a redundancy scheme. The Minister knows that my job was resettlement. But the massive redundancy payments are no longer available. We have this Bill because we must pay for those redundancies. As the Minister said, it is a continuing payment and the industry will be viable only if we keep on paying it. We would not even think of voting against such a measure. We must not be mealy-mouthed about it. We must recognise it for what it is worth.
The industry is now called the British Coal Corporation. Not so long ago, it was the National Coal Board, and when we questioned the use of "British Coal", we were told that it was just a name to be used for selling coal. It was thought that it would sell more coal using that name. Now it is called the British Coal Corporation, and it seems that we are getting rid of all the dead wood—as the Minister would probably call it, but which I believe is a necessary part of the industry — and reaching a position where private capital can be introduced. The corporation may also be sold off, but that remains to be seen.
Let us consider the people who will he caught up in redundancy but will not benefit from the massive redundancy payments that have been made. The retraining scheme is totally inadequate and should be re-examined. It cannot be done in eight weeks. In 1947, the new National Coal Board sent me away for six months' training as an electrical engineer. The board recognised that it took about six months to get the basics right before going on to technical college and university. What has changed? Why is a period of eight weeks now considered to be adequate for retraining? The industry must know from its history that it is simply running a whitewash brush over the problem. Now that the redundancy payments have disappeared, and the jobs are no longer being bought out, we must consider retraining.
The British Steel Corporation's retraining programme runs for a minimum of two years. We should consider that example seriously, because the people who will be leaving the industry, because of the change in structure, will be young men. If we hope to carry out retraining of the young men who are being made redundant or who are leaving the industry, we must look seriously at how we retrain them for future occupations.
British Steel looked seriously at the way in which it should carry out retraining. I talked to British Steel about that. It looked at the labour market and at the possibilities of jobs that might be available. Consequently, it was retraining not for a dead end, but for the future. I ask the Minister to look at retraining for the future. The minimum


time necessary is two years, and people must be retrained for specific jobs that may become available not necessarily in the area in which they were born, but in other areas.
We must be far more constructive about training than we have been in the past now that the big redundancy payments have gone. We must look after the people who have given many years and whose fathers have given a lifetime to the industry. We owe them that. A Labour Government will expand rather than contract the industry. The Minister talked about a new base. We will build on that and expand the industry, because that is what is necessary.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke about the six jobs allocated to his constituents as a result of the setting up of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. My hon. Friend is not sure how many more people have got jobs. I am not aware of any more in great numbers, but I think that about half a dozen or eight or perhaps 10 were created on the Government quango that set up this organisation. Two of those people did their level best to run down the efforts of the people who were on strike and they got their just reward for participating in that action. Some of them already had jobs.
If my hon. Friend is drawing up a register of those who have got jobs under British Coal Enterprise Ltd., he should have a look at the brochure. Perhaps he will find a few more jobs, but I doubt whether he will get to the figures of 10,000 or 14,000 that have been mentioned. No doubt the Minister, in a flight of fancy, would say 20,000.
Hon. Members have spoken about record productivity in the British coalfield. There is no doubt that there has been record productivity every time we have got away from pit closures. One does not need to be a Pythagoras to work that out. If at any given moment the 20 or 30 pits at the bottom of the productivity table are chopped off, the net result is that those further up the table show a greater increase in productivity. That has happened under all Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone knows only too well that the pits at the bottom of the table at any given time could, given a bit of a chance and a breather, get to a white face or overcome whatever the trouble is, perhaps various difficulties in the strata, and find themselves three years later at the top of the league when previously they had been at the bottom. Other pits, sadly, have been shut and all the men and women involved are out of work. When they go to the unemployment exchange to get some money from the taxpayer—part of the £20-odd billion that unemployment is currently costing—they find an order from the Government saying that we have to spend more money on some sort of redundancy payments and concessionary coal payments.
Then we will be told that we have to find some more money for British Coal Enterprise Ltd., in order to provide more jobs for more bureaucrats and half a dozen people in the average coalfield constituency. Anybody looking at that from abroad or from afar would say that it was economic madness. They would ask why on earth the Government are doing it. Of course, they are doing it

because this order is a follow-on from the Bill that we debated some time ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) spoke strongly about that.
That Bill was about laying the way open for privatisation in the event of a Tory victory at the general election. That is the essence of the order, because the last thing that the Tory Government want is to saddle certain areas of the coal industry with a large bill. We know from past experience that, when the Government have launched privatisations, they have ensured that the chosen sectors of the economy have been well breached by the time of the handover or sell-out, and the order continues that practice. That is what the game is all about.
It is sad that in their retreat in the search for jobs, some in the industry have even talked of working six days a week for single-time payments. It would be ridiculous if there were to be any further erosion of terms and conditions of that sort. I listened to the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) praising those who have declared that they will work a six-day week. He and his colleagues are telling miners that if they want a job they must work six days a week, but he and his friends turn up for work only half the time. The recent victor at Greenwich, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), voted only a few times in this place before we learned that she was looking for another job. Having found one job, she has obtained another, at a salary of £9,000 a year. However, the Liberal spokesman has the cheek to tell miners that they must grovel for six days a week if they are to have a job. These are the messages that come from the mouths of Liberals, and they should understand that my colleagues in Wales are not sold on the idea of a six-day week. I advise the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and his colleagues not to get any fancy notions.

Mr. Livsey: The leadership of the south Wales NUM is in favour of the six-day week.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should read the small print.

Mr. Livsey: The proposition is a six-day working week, and not necessarily miners working a six-day week.

Mr. Skinner: The matter will be decided soon at the NUM conference. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman confers with the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), and checks on his record of attendance in this place. He should ask his right hon. Friend what he thinks about six-day working. The right hon. Gentleman appears six days a week only on our television screens. He is prepared to appear on that medium every day of the week, five times a day on any tinpot subject under the sun. I am amazed that no interviewer has said to him, "By the way, leader of the Social Democratic party, what did you do about this issue when you were Foreign Secretary? Were you too busy signing glossy autographed photographs of yourself, which you were trying to sell but did not manage to as you trotted around the globe, doing very little apart from that?" We do not want any lectures from those who have just dropped in for a moment or two on the Liberal-SDP Benches, and who in this instance might not be around to continue the discussion after the general election.
This is a serious matter. We know that 9 million tonnes of coal are being imported and that it would be wrong to


take a partisan point of view. Why import 9 million tonnes of coal at this time, when we have so many difficulties with the balance of payments and everything else? Surely the Government should have the decency, quite apart from anything else, to follow up their candy-floss words about being against apartheid, and at least stop the coal that comes from South Africa via various routes through Amsterdam and so on. Why do the Government not have the guts to stop that imported coal?
They should go further than that. They say that they stand up for Britain. We always get a lot of patriotism from Ministers and the Prime Minister, but they never seem to put it into practice. What is the economic sense in allowing all that coal to come in? It is subsidised up to the hilt, as everybody knows. Some countries are awash with coal. They say, "I tell you what—send it to Britain. It is an easy touch. It is into monetarism. It is mad on it in certain areas, although not in the City of London, which is into subsidy in a big way. Tax relief is the order of the day in the City. But if it is manufacturing industry, send it across to Britain. It will take it on. The philosophy still holds good in certain areas."
The Government fall for that ploy, with the net result that they finish up with having to pay even more people at the unemployment exchange, and bring in some more Bills and orders to make all the redundancy payments. What nonsense. This order is about reducing jobs. It is hound to be. How can it be anything else? It recommends that one should pay more people what used to be called large redundancy payments. The only large ones that I have ever seen are those that I have read about in the newspapers for top business men — £1 million was shared between seven of them recently.
These orders reduce the capacity of those working in the pits. This is partly a paving order for privatisation, and the interesting comment from the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was all part of the plan. One of the legs of this plan is to make sure that there is plenty of opencast production because all those interested in moving into the mining industry will be looking at that first. If they can increase the 80 million tonnes, that would be important.
However, the hon. Member for Darlington said something else. He asked why the Minister did not move on to increasing the numbers allowed to work in the private mines. All of us who have worked in the industry know that such mines are more dangerous than the mines in which we worked. One of the reasons for the limit of 30 workers is the health and safety hazard.
Another important point is that the Government are focusing their attention on places such as Selby in north Yorkshire, and the Margam complex is all part of that. Once they get greater efficiency from those pits, they will shut the smaller, less efficient and less economic pits next door. If anybody gets the fancy idea that Margam, the privatisation of Selby, the Warwickshire coalfield and the Leicestershire and South Notts coalfield will do anything for the industry, they had better think again. It will all be about maximising production in the easiest seams.
We all know from our experience that one of the benefits of nationalisation was that if there were seven seams, however, difficult some of them were, at least an attempt would be made to work them. Once privatisation gets hold, they will say, "Let's get the best three seams, the easiest, and then we will move along with our opencast friends."
The order also deals with housing. They have the cheek, under paragraph (vi) of the schedule, to talk about:
Payment to local authorities and housing associations for the provision of housing for employees on account of their place of employment being changed.
It sounds grand; we cannot object to it on the face of it. As everybody knows who has taken part in the argument, we have been having battles and discussions with British Coal, about selling off its houses. British Coal has been encouraged by the Government with their market orientation, to sell off all its houses to some entrepreneur who will then sell them off to somebody else. A lot of the tenants in my constituency do not know who the landlord is. Some of them have disappeared into the night. The Government come before Parliament and say, "We have a little item here which will help British Coal to provide housing through local authorities and housing associations," when the job could have been done by keeping, hold of those properties, as was the case until fairly recently.
I refer to concessionary coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) said that he was making his last speech. I am not so sure. One can never be sure in this place. He said that he was concerned about concessionary coal payments to widows. He has raised this point every time that he has had half a chance. Successive Government Ministers have not taken up the cause, so we are asking again. I extend the point marginally because it includes others—the pre 1968 widows and some miners who are still living. Only a few hundred are left in parts of the north Derbyshire coalfield, part of Lancashire and a few scattered about in some of the other coalfields.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield is making one last effort, and I am supporting him. Surely to God the Minister could, instead of saying no, have a look At this matter. When I came into this House one of the first things that the Government of 1970–74 did, to great applause from the Tory benches, was to provide pensions for the first time to the over-80s, who never had pensions. There was great applause and the Government received wonderful publicity for it. It only affected a few. That was our argument. We said, "We know why they are doing it. They should give better pensions to everybody." They were giving these pensions for the first time to the over-80s because a lot of them had passed on. The same applies to this. A few hundred people in those coalfields have had a raw deal. Some of them worked 40 or 50 years in the pit and those widows have seen their husbands pass away, many of them of pneumoconiosis. We are asking the Minister, once again, to give a concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield in his last effort.
My hon. Friend said that he did not think that there would be any more great days. I would not accept that lightly. If he will cast his mind back, he will remember that there have been occasions when the industry has stabilised; it has not gone on a great leap forward, but there have been at least three occasions in my experience when the coal industry, because of market forces, the oil business and various other factors, has managed to hold on to its manpower and pits, which astounded us for a number of years.
My hon. Friend's prediction about nuclear power is probably on the ball. When it happens, there will be great days for the mining industry, because such will be the clamour, if the disaster is a bit nearer than the last one at Chernobyl, that people in all parts of the country will rightly say, "There are 300 years of coal beneath our feet.


Let us put an end to nuclear power." The Government say that the nuclear industry is so productive, yet it has not been able to sell one power station. People will understand that more clearly. It is a terrible thing to have to say that it will be that kind of experience that will change matters. The oil and gas will run out, so the great days may still come. I am not throwing the towel in. One fine day, in my last days in this place and when my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield is in the other place, I will say to my hon. Friend, "The great days are here again."

Mr. Frank Haynes: I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He always makes good speeches, particularly when he is talking about the mining industry.
The difference between the Opposition and the Government Benches is that Opposition Members speak with the voice of experience, although the Liberal spokesman's only connection with mining is the fact that his grandfather was a miner. Labour Members have had mining experience, working underground at the coal face. I wonder how many Conservative Members have ever had a No. 10 shovel in their hands. I have. It is as big as a table top and you are given a whacking great heap of coal to shift.
I have listened to the contribution of Conservative Members. We hear from farmers, solicitors and City slickers in the financial world. Many hon. Members have been talking about British Telecom shares; that is what I mean by City slickers. There is more information to come out about other privatisations of public bodies.
Many Tories make their contributions and buzz off. Perhaps they are tired and have to go bed. They certainly have not stayed tonight to hear the education that has been provided by the Opposition. One Tory Member talked about surface mining. He obviously does not know anything about mining because there is a difference between surface mining and deep mining. The nation has depended on the mining industry for donkeys' years, but the Government are destroying that industry in pursuit of profit.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) should listen carefully. He has probably heard this before, but he will hear it again, especially on the doorsteps in his constituency when he talks to miners, particularly the older men who have retired and who suffered so that we could have decent conditions, decent pay and decent jobs in mining. They suffered and I and some of my colleagues experienced that under private ownership.
When the industry was nationalised, safety became the No. 1 priority. It was No. 3 under the private coal owners. The hon. Member for Sherwood shakes his head. He does not understand what I am saying. When I was a youngster in the pit, safety was No. 3 and earnings were No. 2. The No. 1 for the coal owners was production.
I welcome what the Minister said about record-breaking production. Miners have always been able to achieve such results. They were asked to produce during the war and they did so. They produced the energy that the nation required to win the war. They will do the same again whenever they are called on. However, if the Government destroy the mining industry we shall be unable to supply the required energy.
Chernobyl has been mentioned—the hon. Member for Sherwood has a frown on his face, but I have not heard one word from him about miners' objections to nuclear power. I am convinced that one of the reasons why the Government are running down the British coal industry is to bring in more and more nuclear power stations. The Prime Minister promised that in the pre-election period of 1979. When she got in here she talked about the number of new nuclear power stations there would be and set out the programme for such stations. It is clear what the Government are about; it is further to run down the mining industry.
There will be further pit closures in my constituency. When I was a youngster there were up to 14 pits in the area, but slowly but surely those pits have been destroyed. As a result of the Government's policies, slowly but surely the industry is being destroyed. One day we shall end up with no coal industry and we shall be sorry for it. When we get back into power we must do something about that problem. I believe that there should be a stop to any further nuclear power stations and those existing nuclear stations should be run down. We must again become sensible about the production of energy in Britain. The miners have always been asked to produce the energy requirements for the nation and they have lived up to their responsibilities.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: No, it is 11.11 pm. The hon. Gentleman has just walked back into the Chamber—I do not know where he has been—and now he wants to make an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman had remained in the Chamber he could have made a speech.
We are discussing the coal mining industry and additional finance to that industry. I welcome that finance, it is a step in the right direction. However, it is nowhere near enough because of the problems that the industry faces. The point that I am seeking to make is that this Government have put all the weight of the costs of compensations and repairs — necessary because of mining subsidence — on the pits that caused that subsidence. Previous Governments had a commitment regarding those costs. However, the Government have washed their hands of the matter to save money. The end result of that saving is that the Government, through the National Coal Board or British Coal, as they now like to call it, are now telling those people who are making claims for compensation or repairs to damaged properties, "Sorry the damage is done" Those people are getting nowhere with their claims.
No compensation is being offered and no repairs are being carried out. That is the way that the wicked Tory Government work. It is high time that the Minister took responsibility and told the NCB or British Coal that it has a responsibility to the people, not just in my constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood. However, in any debates that we have had regarding compensation and repair to properties as a result of mining subsidence we have not heard a word from the hon. Gentleman. It is high time that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservatives whose constituencies face mining subsidence problems followed our lead.
I had hoped that the Minister would do something about the problem, but he has done little. Representations have been made and I even went so. far as to introduce a


ten-minute Bill on the problem. We have not met with much success yet. I am hoping to get a Second Reading for the Bill on 8 May so that it can go into Committee, come back for a Third Reading and we can get something done for the people in the mining areas.
I appreciate the time and I shall be brief. I wish to discuss concessionary fuel. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) have mentioned this problem. The Minister has been told time and time again about it. There are elderly people in my constituency, especially widows, who are receiving concessionary fuel. They receive smokeless fuel in lieu of cash. Because of the wicked winter the fuel went nowhere near keeping them warm. The fuel was gone in next to no time. The cash was gone, because as the price went up people could buy less fuel for the cash that they received. Because of cuts in the rate support grant the local authorities have not been able to pay for the fuel. The hon. Member for Sherwood should not shake his head because I am explaining the facts. In my constituency the local authority cannot afford to change its suppliers because the rate support grant has been cut. The Government have cut the grant each year since 1979.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: I will not give way.
I welcome the Southampton coal-fired power station. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, the Government propose to ship coal from South Africa to fire that station. The Government have not denied it. I ask the Minister to state tonight that the Southampton power station will be fired by British coal. For years coal from the north-east has been transported to the south. That should be continued. The coal should be transported by barge—or by some other means—to the south. The Minister must deny that the Government intend to import South African coal and say that they will use coal from the north-east for the Southampton power station.

Mr. Eadie: I do not want to detain the Minister, because he has many comments to make. The debate has been interesting and perhaps there can be some unanimity. Perhaps the debate has proved that King Coal is not dead and that the coal reserves are an insurance for our people.
My purpose is to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), who has perhaps made his last contribution in the House. The House is richer for his contributions. He made a passionate plea to the Minister. He has made that plea repeatedly during his distinguished career. He talked about the people who are left out. I do not know whether the Minister is feeling generous, or whether he has the power to be generous, but when he considers my hon. Friend's contribution and the hard work that he has done in the House, he might find it possible to say that he will consider what my hon. Friend said about concessionary coal for those left out because the schemes are not retrospective. My hon. Friend's argument was amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The Minister has many aspects to respond to, such as nuclear power and the future of the mining industry. I

hope that he will comment on the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield. It may be his last contribution. However, his membership of the House has been very distinguished.

Mr. David Hunt: This has been a fascinating debate. I hope that the House will understand that in the 10 minutes that remain I shall not have time to cover all the points raised. I shall write to those hon. Members to whose questions I do not have time to reply.
All those who have spoken in the debate have been united by their concern for the coal industry, but I highlight the remarkable contrast between the contributions from the Government Benches and those from the Opposition Benches. On the Government side there were forward-looking, positive speeches from my hon. Friends who are close to the men whom they represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who has more producing pits in his constituency than any other hon. Member, represents the brave men of Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who was until recently a coal face worker at Littleton colliery, knows what it is like underground. He probably has the most recent experience underground of any Member in the House of Commons. We are proud to have him on the Conservative Benches.
My hon. Friends the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, all listened, I thought, with rapt attention to a remarkably good speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe turned to me and said "Do you really need to wind up the debate after a speech as good as that?" I hope that he will forgive me for quoting him. The best thing about the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet was that he looked forward well into the future. The worst thing about speeches from Opposition Members was that they were once again voices anchored in the past. I suppose that the strangled cries of dying Socialism are not a nice noise for the House to hear, but it is still going on, and it drags on and on.
One of these days I hope very much that Opposition Members will lift up their eyes and see the new spirit in the coalfield, the fine fellowship that I find underground at the coal face at present and that I found at Agecroft colliery in Manchester only a few weeks ago, where the men told me that the last thing they wanted was a Labour Government. They believed that life would be as black as the coal that they worked if Labour were ever returned to office because they felt that power would return to the discredited president of the NUM. I just hope that one day they will lift up their eyes and see that new spirit in the coalfield.
I shall respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Midlothiam (Mr. Eadie). He asked why we have the order when we have only just passed a Coal Industry Act. That is, of course, because the order follows directly from section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987 and seeks to introduce those very provisions that I spoke about in Committee when we discussed that measure.
The hon. Gentleman questioned whether I had mentioned retraining and employment opportunities. If he checks Hansard, he will find that I said that the order provided for support towards a broad range of costs associated with restructuring, including costs of redundancy and early retirement, changes of work and place of employment, retraining for persons who are to leave or who have left the corporation through redundancy or incapacity, and costs associated with the promotion of new employment opportunities. Those are crucial points.
I respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to give a progress report on British Coal Enterprise Ltd, because the Government are encouraged by what has happened so far. For the first time we have a company dedicated to the provision of assistance for job creation in coal mining areas. That company's aim is to assist in the creation of jobs on a sufficent scale to offset the jobs lost during the restructuring of the industry. Since that company was formed in October 1984, it has committed £27 million in support of 1,184 projects, with a combined capital cost of £186 million, and assisted in the creation of 16,102 job opportunities by the end of March. Therefore, additional investment of over £160 million has been triggered off by direct action by British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
I challenge Opposition Members to stop discrediting or seeking to discredit the work of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. I recognise that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) did not do so — he mentioned that it had done excellent work — but other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), continually try to discredit the work of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. However, the facts fly in the face of what the hon. Gentleman sought to persuade the House.
It has never been the case, under the redundant mineworkers' pension scheme, which was introduced by a Labour Government, that people working in the licensed mines would benefit. Similarly, it has not been the case that those working in the private open-cast sector would benefit. Now with the redundant mineworkers' pension scheme at an end, the new arrangements, announced by the chairman of British Coal, apply to the employees of British Coal, not to those employees who are involved in the private sector. The question of royalties had no bearing on this question. It is for the employers in the private sector to provide for their own employees.
In 1979, when this Government came to office and inherited the coal industry from the stewardship of the hon. Member for Midlothian, the United Kingdom was a net importer of 2 million tonnes per year. Within four years, we were able to change that and this country became a net exporter of 2 million tonnes. Sadly, the strike destroyed that position. However, with the fine efforts of the men in the coalfields, I understand that we shall reach a position where coal is even more competitive than it is now. We cannot ignore our competitive position in world markets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington challenged me to tell him exactly what would happen in future orders as regards percentage and responsibility for terms and conditions. I am happy to confirm that, as British Coal returns to full viability, the proportion of the costs borne by it will be increased. However, I would not wish to

anticipate the percentage support to be specified in future orders, nor when it would prove appropriate for British Coal to bear all such future costs.
To the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) I would just say, "Yes, there has been a decline in numbers in south Wales, especially during the past 18 months." However, that has not been accompanied by a decline in output. Therefore, I do not call that a decline in the industry. Productivity has risen as never before in south Wales, and miners have been able to maintain the same level of output although with much reduced numbers. That is a marvellous example for the future of the coal industry.
I have also been asked about open-cast coal. Of course, open-cast mining has a vital role to play. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West stressed—he knows from his own work at Littleton colliery, as I found out by going underground at Lea Hall colliery — that deep-mined coal from such mines is unsaleable unless it is sweetened and blended with open-cast coal. Therefore, open-cast coal has an important part to play when it is combined with deep-mined production, and it is not to be seen as directly in competition with jobs in the deep mine sector. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is disagreeing with me. Some deep mines require open-cast coal to sweeten their output so that an acceptable product is produced for the customers.

Mr. Haynes: I never mentioned it.

Mr. Hunt: I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was heckling me. Obviously he was not.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor raised the issue of damage to the environment. Planning procedures ensure that an application to work open-cast coal does not go ahead without all the arguments for and against the development being aired, thus allowing for a balanced judgment. The Open-cast Executive spends a great deal of time and effort to reduce the impact of its sites and to restore them once coaling has ceased. I do not have time to mention the other points about open-cast mining now.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) has made his last speech. We all remember the courage he showed during a difficult period which most hon. Members have tried to avoid mentioning. I, too, shall try not to make the mistake of doing so in detail. He is a brave man, and I am sorry that we have heard his last speech. He will know, as the hon. Member for Bolsover knows, that for many years the entitlement to concessionary coal was governed by a complex series of local and district agreements, some of which dated from many years past. Many anomalies often caused disputes and—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No.86 (Nomination of standing


committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) shall apply to the Code of Guidance for Sites of Special Scientific Interest as if the said Code were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Orders of the Day — Package Holidays (Insurance)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Peter Fry: I raise the question of monitoring tour operators' codes of conduct because of the circumstances surrounding a holiday in a Greek apartment booked through Intasun in June 1986 by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, and their daughter Emily, now aged two.
On studying the Intasun brochure my constituents accepted the recommended holiday insurance. Perhaps it should be noted that Intasun, like many other operators, makes it difficult to decline its preferred insurance as it is necessary specifically to refuse it. Nevertheless, the Shaws were satisfied with the description of the insurance. and I am not surprised, as it states:
Enjoy complete peace of mind with Intasun holiday insurance with Eagle Star Group … It's one of the finest available — excellent cover for you and your family. It provides total security.
The booking form asks for any special requests and the Shaws requested a cot for their young daughter. The request was subsequently shown typed on the official Intasun invoices. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Shaw took confidence from Intasun's fair trading policy, commitment No. 5 of which states:
We do not exclude or limit our liability to you for any loss or damage sustained by you as a result of the negligence of our employees or agents.
No wonder that Mr. and Mrs. Shaw felt well prepared for the holiday.
They duly arrived at their destination and found the cot in place. They were informed that it had been arranged and paid for by the Intasun representative and that they owed her the money. Unfortunately, the cot was unsuitable for all but the youngest babies and young Emily fell out of it and cut her head badly on a metal strip on the marble floor. That caused a considerable gash requiring six stitches. The damage was bad enough but could have been much worse, and the little girl was caused considerable pain and suffering and the danger of a permanent scar. The Shaws were unable to obtain a more satisfactory cot and eventually received their money back from the representative.
On returning to the United Kingdom the Shaws first discovered that there was no personal accident insurance that covered that particular injury, so Mrs. Shaw wrote to Intasun, pointing out the danger of using such cots and asking that something be done about it to avoid even worse accidents or even a fatality, which is possible as a result of such an accident. At the same time. quite reasonably, she asked whether there was any possibility of compensation for out-of-pocket expenses, particularly for taxi fares to and from the hospital. She received a fairly full reply of 28 July 1986, in which Intasun expressed regret, but not much more. There was no mention of compensation and no liability or responsibility accepted for supplying the cot.
Mrs. Shaw wrote again saying that she thought such an important safety issue should be well publicised and mentioned that she had discovered that she could not address her complaint about Intasun to any form of official arbitration. That was a shock to her as she was under the impression that complaints against tour


operators could go to arbitration. However, she discovered that complaints such as hers, relating to personal injury, were specifically excluded. Intasun replied that it had asked hotel managements to make cots as safe as possible but
could only hope they would comply.
In the same letter to Mrs. Shaw it said that the subject had already been publicised on the media in this country and that parents should be aware of the dangers. However, it went on to say:
Intasun holidays are doing everything within our power to try and ensure that cots provided are safe for children and small babies.
The Shaws received no satisfaction from the company so, at the end of August, they came to see me. Early in September I wrote to Intasun saying that I thought it had some obligation towards the family. The head of its legal services, a Mr. John de Vial, replied asking for more information and promised "urgent attention". I replied on 29 September and on 7 October Mr. de Vial, promised detailed comments "as soon as possible." On 2 January I asked for a reply. On 4 February I asked for a reply. It was a few days after that that I met an Intasun director at an Association of British Travel Agents seminar and mentioned the delay. I had still received no reply. On 27 February I met another Intasun executive and told him that my patience was now exhausted.
Miraculously, a letter appeared on the House letter board dated 27 February enclosing a copy of a letter dated 30 December. The excuse was that two separate letters had been sent to me, which apparently had not reached me. I cannot know whether that was true. Letters can be backdated. All I know is that the odds of two letters being sent to a Member of Parliament at the House and not reaching him are astronomical. Post Office officials confirm that. However, the reply offered no redress to my constituents and no acceptance of liability. Indeed, it specifically put the onus on Mr. and Mrs. Shaw. In a further letter, Mr. de Vial specifically said that the transaction was a matter between the family and the property management. That entirely ignored the part played by the Intasun representative. Indeed, the only supposedly helpful remark that Mr. de Vial made was to suggest that the Shaws should take action in the Greek courts, perhaps with the aid of the Shaws' European Member of Parliament. That is the position we have reached now.
I view Intasun in a poor light and I would certainly not book any holiday with the company. I give fair warning to those who do that there does not appear to be an effective response to complaints, nor can I promise an early reply to any letters that might be addressed to it.
Certain principles seem to have been raised by this case of a personal injury incurred while on holiday. First, the average holidaymaker taking out the normal comprehensive insurance is under the impression that he and his family are covered by such insurance. That is clearly not the case. The personal accident cover is clearly inadequate. Secondly, there is the fact that in the event of any accident there is no arbitration procedure for action against the holiday company as there is with other types of claim. Thirdly, the problem in such cases is that the only recourse would be action against the hotelier through the local courts. For all practical purposes that would seem to be

out of the question except in the case of fairly serious injuries involving heavy damage. Fourthly, a great concern is the way in which tour operators seem to be able to skate round responsibility for any accidents that occur in accommodation that they have booked. Therefore, it is right to ask what can be done in the future. I believe that ABTA tries to be a reputable, public-spirited organisation, but, as an article in the Sunday press only yesterday reminded us, it is finding it impossible to persuade tour operators to agree on a common insurance policy.
However, millions of our fellow countrymen will go abroad on holiday this year. They will think they have adequate insurance, that the tour operators have some liability and that in the event of any dispute there will be arbitration. They will be wrong on all three counts.
What solutions are available? First, all operators should issue leaflets such as that issued by Horizon Holidays. This specifically mentions the danger of cots that may be unsuitable for young children. But even that excellent leaflet does not point to the very wide gap in insurance cover that is usually available.
Secondly, ABTA should re-examine the codes of conduct and wonder whether, if so large an operator as Intasun can act in the way that I have outlined, the codes are not strong enough. Equally, if ABTA considers that they are, should not Intasun be disciplined or shown up for the way in which it behaved?
Thirdly, if it is accepted that it will take some time to deal with this vexed question of personal injury and to devise a code of conduct that will deal with it, ABTA could recommend ex-gratia payments until a new code can be agreed that will make it impossible for a British tour operator to wriggle out of a liability that it might have to cover in this country.
That is the real point. Had there been a similar calamity in this country the Shaws could have taken effective action. That would have enabled them to claim compensation for their daughter.
I remind the House that the cot was mentioned in the original invoice, that it was specifically obtained by the Intasun representative and that the company representative paid for it and was reimbursed by the Shaws. Perhaps most importantly, surely the company's representative on the site was in a far better position to know whether the cot that was ordered was suitable for the young girl and in a far better position than the parents to make such a decision. I suggest that in this respect Intasun's response is misleading if not downright untruthful. In these circumstances, no British tour operator should be able to wriggle out of any responsibility.
I am aware that the whole question of personal accident insurance is very tricky, and the likelihood is that it is difficult to arrange cover for a child as young as this. But many people who will be injured will be in employment and would expect compensation on a weekly basis should they have an accident abroad. It is worth noting that statistically one is more likely to have an accident on holiday than at work.
I therefore look to ABTA to find ways in which such cover can be extended in a better manner than hitherto. A few years ago such cover was available as part of the normal holiday insurance. It has been cut out in recent years, presumably in order to save money.
ABTA has a great responsibility to put the tour operators' house in order. I accept that it does not have the kind of powers that my hon. Friend has, but, after all,


it is supposed to be responsible for these codes of conduct and for ensuring that they are adhered to. I stress that in the meantime ex-gratia payments on a modest scale would do much to give confidence where, as I have shown, confidence is lacking at present. I therefore look forward to my hon. and learned Friend's reply. The holidays of many of our countrymen may well be ruined by accidents this year. Surely the time has come for us to try to ensure that any accidents that happen to people in future have a happier ending than the case to which I have referred tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on securing the opportunity of bringing this subject to the attention of the House. It is always distressing to learn of accidents befalling British families while on holiday abroad and particularly so when children are hurt. I sincerely hope that the daughter of my hon. Friend's constituents makes a full recovery and is none the worse for her experience.
My hon. Friend has made some interesting suggestions about protection for consumers who suffer personal injury on holiday. I am sure that he will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of any specific dispute between consumer and tour operator, which could be a matter ultimately for the courts. Existing laws and codes of practice already provide extensive protection for holidaymakers. However, the extent to which the law would apply in individual cases would depend upon the facts of each case and the terms of any contract or contracts which may exist. It may therefore be helpful if I explain the position in general terms.
In the first instance, holidaymakers have a significant measure of protection under the law. Although in the United Kingdom no laws specifically and exclusively govern rights and duties between those who provide package holidays and those who purchase them, the basic legal position is primarily governed by the ordinary, general law of contract and, in some circumstances, by the law of tort. The law is based upon common law and equitable principles developed over a long period by judicial decisions and modified from time to time by statutory provisions.
Package tours comprise a number of different elements, including travel, food and accommodation at a resort. The holidaymaker may enter into a contract with a tour operator to provide any or all of these services. The relationship between the parties is governed by the terms of their contract. The basis for the contract is generally set out in the booking conditions laid down in the tour operator's brochure. Contractual rights and obligations and any exclusions specifically provided for will vary from operator to operator. To the extent that the contract does not specifically provide for certain rights or obligations, terms or conditions may be derived from the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This Act requires that a provider of services fulfils his obligations with reasonable care and skill.
The contract with the tour operator is not necessarily the only contract entered into as an integral part of a package holiday. It is not uncommon for the holiday-maker to enter into a particular arrangement on arrival at an hotel for specific facilities or services. In those

circumstances the contract will be governed by local law, and the tour operator is unlikely to be a party to any such contract.
Exclusions from liability in specific contractual terms, or from terms implied under the Supply of Goods and Services Act, will be subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Under the 1977 Act, terms which purport to exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from a tour operator's negligence are void. Other clauses purporting to exclude liability for negligence in other circumstances are enforceable only if reasonable in all the circumstances. Liability may also arise in the law of tort if injury or loss is caused by negligent acts or omissions or results from negligent mis-statements by the tour operator or those for whom he is responsible
The remedy for breach of any of these provisions is by civil proceedings for damages. I know that the general public often feel inhibited from taking these grievances to court because of what the believe to be the lengthy delays and costs involved. May I remind the House that claims for £5,000 or less are heard in the county courts and that under the small claims scheme disputes involving £500 or less — a figure which is currently under review — are automatically referred for arbitration once a defence is filed. The scheme is intended to be as quick, easy and inexpensive as possible. To this end, procedures have been simplified to enable consumers to make these claims without employing a solicitor to represent them.
My hon. Friend mentioned the ABTA codes of practice. Those codes, one for the travel agents and the other for the tour operators, were drawn up in consultation with the Office of Fair Trading and prescribe rules to be observed by all member companies in arms such as description of holidays, booking conditions, alterations, cancellations and price variations. Failure to observe the code may result in the member company being fined or expelled from the association. The House will no doubt be aware that ABTA members provide the vast majority of package holidays from the United Kingdom. Under the ABTA rules, tour operator members are required to summarise accurately in their brochures any insurance facilities they offer alongside the holiday package. ABTA travel agents are required to draw the attention of their clients to insurance facilities and cover suitable to the clients' requirements.
In the event of a dispute, the ABTA code for tour operators provides for arbitration, but, as my hon. Friend said, the arbitration scheme does not extend to claims mainly or solely in respect of physical injury or illness or their consequences. The scheme is operated simply and cheaply on a documents-only basis, without the need for either side to employ a solicitor, and it is not surprising that claims related to personal injury are excluded, given the exceptional, and frequently complex, nature of such claims.
In disputes with insurers, there are two schemes whereby private policyholders can seek arbitration without having to resort to potentially costly legal action. The Insurance Ombudsman Bureau will investigate complaints about member companies where policyholders have failed to get satisfaction from the chief executive of the company concerned. The service is free to policyholders, and if a policyholder accepts the Ombudsman's decision, it is binding on both member company and policyholder. If the policyholder rejects the decision, he may pursue the complaint in the courts.
Some insurance companies subscribe to the personal insurance arbitration service which operates under the auspices of the Institute of Arbitrators, as in the case of the ABTA scheme. An independent arbitrator is appointed to consider a dispute, and both parties must agree to go to arbitration. The arbitrator's decision is binding on both parties and has the force of a legal award. If the policyholder is dissatisfied with the outcome, he does not have the right to litigation.
My hon. Friend contended that the average holiday-maker, in taking out the normal comprehensive insurance, is under the impression that he and his family are covered by such insurance. This is clearly not necessarily the case, depending upon the terms of the policy.
I have already outlined the obligations which ABTA imposes on its members, and the House will recall that member travel agents are required to draw their clients' attention to insurance facilities suitable to the clients' requirements and that tour operators must accurately summarise in their brochures any facilities that they offer. But most people would accept that it is in the consumer's best interest to have adequate insurance cover for his needs; and considerable effort has been made by Government, consumer organisations and the travel industry alike to get this message across to the holidaymaker. It is a basic principle that the consumer should satisfy himself that he has adequate insurance cover before he goes on holiday. He must therefore decide whether any policy which is on offer is adequate for any needs he may have or whether any additional cover may be required.
Holiday insurance arrangements have developed alongside the massive growth of the package foreign holiday industry. Much holiday insurance is similarly packaged for a mass market. Such insurance policies are intended to meet normal needs for a relatively short fixed period. The cover provided is standard, to keep administrative costs low, and the product competitive. Premiums, too, are low. A typical policy for a 10 to 14-night holiday might give cancellation cover, medical expenses abroad, hospital benefit, certain personal accident benefits and cover for personal baggage and money up to specific limits. It is also open to the holidaymaker to take out additional cover in a particular

area, for example to cover the cost of legal expenses when making a court claim against someone who is legally liable for causing personal injury.
My hon. Friend suggested that ABTA should do more to see that holidaymakers are properly covered or at least fully understand the implications of what cover is available. The Director General of Fair Trading is currently conducting an exercise to monitor the effectiveness of the ABTA codes of practice.
The Director General of Fair Trading still has to discuss the survey with ABTA before publication of a report. He will explore whether it would he feasible or desirable to incorporate into the codes any obligation on the part of tour operators about safety standards in the accommodation and facilities that they provide.
Holidays abroad inevitably involve some element of risk, or at least the unpredictable. Therefore, it is only prudent that holidaymakers should satisfy themselves that they have adequate insurance cover. If they are in any doubt about the adequacy of a policy they should seek advice on taking additional cover to meet their particular requirements.
If things unfortunately do go wrong, I have drawn the House's attention to the considerable degree of protection for holidaymakers which already exists in law in the ABTA codes and in other arbitration schemes. The Government believe that the means whereby an aggrieved consumer may seek redress—either through the civil courts or by arbitration—are substantial. If consumers are unsure of their rights or of how to proceed in litigation, they should take advantage of the advice provided by citizen's advice bureaux or by their solicitor.
I have not heard in the debate any arguments that give me reason to think that the present level of protection for holidaymakers is inadequate or that the means of redress are unsound. There is always scope for improvement and the Government take a close interest in the monitoring carried out by the Director General of Fair Trading. I shall ask him to consider in the context of his current review the matter of exclusion from arbitration in the tour operators' code of practice of claims resulting from injury or illness. The answer to many of the problems that arise is not more controls but better use by the consumer of the remedies that already exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.